IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 82 of 2002 Date of decision: 11.12.2008 State of H.P. …. Appellant. Vs. Prem Lal ... Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant-State: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy.Advocate General. For the respondent: Sh. Ramesh Sharma, vice Mr. N.K.Thakur Advocate. Per Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) This appeal is directed against the judgement dated 31st March, 2000 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba, acquitting the accused of having committed an offence punishable under Section 408 I.P.C. The prosecution story is that the respondent was working as Secretary-cum-Sales Man of the Kilar Multipurpose Co-operative Society w.e.f. 3.7.1982 to 5.9.1989. According to the prosecution, in June 1989 the accused locked the store of the society and as such audit of the stocks of the society could not be conducted for the year 1988-89. Thereafter, the office bearers of the society filed an application before the Resident Commissioner, Pangi, informing him that the accused had locked the store of the society. On the direction of the Resident Commissioner, the application was forwarded to the SDM, Pangi who thereafter directed PW-10 Sant Ram, Inspector Co- operative Societies to conduct the audit of the records of the society. The lock of the store was broken open and then the audit of the stocks and the account books were conducted and it was found that store articles and cash valuing Rs.39,556.22/- were short. It is also not disputed that Shri Bhan Chand PW-2 was appointed as Secretary of the society on 28.11.1989. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment . yes. 2 Assuming for the sake of argument that the audit report proved by PW-10 Sant Ram is correct the mere fact that there is shortage in the store is not sufficient to prove that the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 408 IPC. To prove the offence of criminal breach of trust it was incumbent upon the prosecution to prove entrustment of the property with the accused and also the misappropriation of the property with dishonest intention. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove what were the stocks which were handed over to the accused. Even the entries in the account- books have not been proved. The prosecution alleges that these entries are in the handwriting of the accused. Specimen handwriting of the accused were also taken and got compared by the Examiner of Questioned documents. Thought the Examiner of Questioned documents submitted his report, but the prosecution did not examine the said officer to prove his report and the evidence of the prosecution was closed by orders of the Court. Therefore, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the entries which are the basis of the alleged misappropriation are in the handwriting of the accused. Admittedly, PW-2 Bhan Chand took over as the Secretary of the Society in November, 1989. The FIR was lodged on 11.11.1990 i.e. more than one year thereafter. There is no plausible explanation as to why the F.I.R. could not be lodged immediately after the store was unlocked and the discrepancy found. Keeping in consideration all these above facts, I am of the considered opinion that the judgement of the learned trial Court acquitting the accused is absolutely correct and calls for no interference in appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the accused are discharged. December 11, 2008 (Deepak Gupta), J. ™ 3