IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No.619 of 1996 Date of decision: 10.5.2010 State of H.P. ... Appellant Versus Narain Singh and another … Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the appellant: Mr.Vivek Singh Thakur, Addl.A.G. For the respondents: Mr.Vinay Thakur, Advocate. ____________________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J. (oral) This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 26.12.1994 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class (II) Rohru, District Shimla in case No.7-2 of 86/67-2 of 1992 whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed an offence punishable under Sections 407, 409/34 and 120-B IPC and has been granted the benefit of probation. Though the appeal is filed against both the accused, there is not even an averment in the grounds of appeal that the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act has been wrongly given to accused Narain Singh. No appeal under Section 11 of the Probation of Offenders Act has 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 been filed and therefore at this belated stage we do not intend to hear this appeal qua Narain Singh. As far as accused Hari Chand is concerned the case of the prosecution itself is that the Department of Food and Civil Supplies, Himachal Pradesh used to procure wheat and store it in the Departmental Godown at Chirgaon. This wheat was then issued to Dodra Kawar and Jakha godowns which are in a remote area. The wheat was entrusted to accused Narain Singh who was a carriage contractor to deliver it to these godowns. According to the prosecution, Hari Chand was in charge of these godowns and it was his duty to enter the wheat received by him in the stock register. Since Hari Chand did not inform the higher authorities about the fact that less wheat had been received from accused Narain Singh he has been charged with having committed offences as aforesaid. To prove a charge of criminal breach of trust the first thing which the prosecution must prove is the entrustment of the property. In the present case it has not been proved that any wheat was entrusted with the accused Hari Chand. According to the prosecution case itself, the lesser quantity of wheat was handed over to accused Hari Chand by accused Narain Singh. This does not 3 amount to entrustment of whole quantity of wheat by the Department. The learned trial Court was right in holding that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the entire quantity of wheat was entrusted to Hari Chand. In case, Hari Chand failed to write to the higher authorities about less quantity of wheat being given to him by Narain Singh it may amount to dereliction of duty but will not amount to criminal breach of trust. Another reason to hold that the property was not entrusted to the accused is that the prosecution witnesses themselves have admitted that copies of the challan given to accused Narain Singh were never delivered to accused Hari Chand. How was Hari Chand to know the quantity of wheat which was sent to him? Therefore, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the entrustment of the property and the learned trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused Hari Chand. There is no merit in the appeal which is dismissed. Bail Bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are ordered to be discharged. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. May 10, 2010 ( Rajiv Sharma ), J. PV