@ _ HIGH GOURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ‘- 1 Division Bench , avq Comm” Hon’big‘Shrl éilig 3§0§ahe§ Deshmukl; and . Hgn’ble Shn Rgieshwar Lal Jhanwar JJ Criminal Aygi No 1149 of1990 i Appellant J i» , I State of Madhya Pradash {now “ ‘ ‘ Chhamsgarh) ’ _ , ‘ versus i ~‘wr'a :Rgspb’ndent Aajuram, son of Ramsal satnami _ Accusgg ‘ ’ ' i ,agad about 36 years resident of ‘ ' Police Line. Jagdaipur, Distnct Bastar v, aw ciiminalr Aggai under Section 37811 i gf the Code o'f gtiminai‘v V Procedure Present: Sim Bhaskar Payashi Pane! Lawyer ior the ' ‘ State/appeliant Shrl Sameer Sahu, counse! for the respondent. om. JUDGMENT > > (Delivered on this 23'“ day Q7 Apm; zqoa), I, t The, foiiowing judgment e was delivered by amp Raosaheb eshmulgh, J.: ' ' Heard. (2) The respondent was posted as Head Constable at the relevant - v ' timeand was in charge of the grain shop in Police ‘Line, Jegdalpur from V 11-34976 to 25-8—1978. On the basis of an auoitreport submitted by i r Head Clerk S'.S.Tripethi, P.W.-2, prosecution was launchedragainst the y respondent for committing criminal breach of ttust by misappropriating M government‘money amountingto_Rs.’6,7‘93l.92. J u ~ (3) The Jooiciel Magistrate First Class, Jegdalpur by_judgment dated :_ a 18-8-4985 delivered in Criminal Case ~Nol931i83 convicted the ~ a . l l l i i i l l l D respondent under Section 409 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous t imprisonment far 3 years and also to a tinesof Rs.4,000I—{and indefault to additional rigorous imprisonment for 2 years. v (4) Being aggrieved, the respondent preferred Criminal Appeai , No.52/85 before the 15' Additionai Sessions Judge, Jagdaipur; By/ - judgment dated 31-5—1 989, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has a allowed the appeal and acquitted the respondent of the charge under _ Section ’409 of the l.P.C. - H i a ¢$ - State/appellant argued that the learned Additional rSessionsJudge has misread the evidence led by the prosecution and erred in allowing the appeal: Shri Bhaskarr Payashi, learned Panel Lawyer for the, . (6) , On the other hand, Shri Sameer Sahu, learned counsel for the, respondent argued in support of the impugned judgment dated 31-57 1989. (7) Having considered the rival submissions, we have perused the a I record. Conviction of the respondent by the Judicial Magistrate First Class rested solely on the audit report of $.S.Tripathi, P.W.-2l.r The» . - , lower appellate Court has dealt with the testimony of S;S.Tripathi, P.W.— _- 2 in details and has given cogent reasons for not placing reliance on it. r On perusal of the record with due circumspection,rwe flnd that there is no material to show that the respondent had ‘(veither ,dishonestty ,1 misappropriated or converted to his own use property or government money amounting to Rs.6,793,$2 or used such amount in violation oft any directions of law. We also tind that the necessary men: lea is also r r lacking. A perusal of‘the testimony of the Assistant Sub-lnspector Raj ‘\ \N 7,\ \i\ g / y3~ ‘ (29 _ Mangal ‘Panldey,PW-1~in paragraph 2 during I re‘c'ross-examinahion‘ ‘, G, shows that at the direction of the Head Clerk the responwdentshad made“ ,1 certain entries in relation to the amoums that were wing .te the credit. A I . ~ perusal of the evidence led by the prosecution also showsthattheré is I 1 no actual misappropriation or emb lament by the respondent. .lnthisw it View ofthe matter, we find no illegality» in the approach of-the learned V _ Additional Sessions.Judge in acquitting-the respondentof the ,oharge.jr»~ _ under section 409 of the l.P.C. (8) The appeal is without merit and is accordingly dismissed. ism.NW , r .Sd/ _ R.L. Jhanwar Judge a, Dllrp Raosaheb Deshmukh‘ Judge ;<w\db~ A §