IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No.540 of 2002. Date of decision:04.08.2011. State of H.P. … …Appellant Versus Ajeet Singh … …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice R.B. Misra,J. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the Appellant: Mr.R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General. For the Respondent: Mr.Ajay Sharma, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. The State has challenged the acquittal of the respondent herein who was charged for offences under Sections 409, 468, 471 and 420 IPC. 2. The case was instituted against the respondent-accused on a written complaint dated 29.12.1994, which was made by the Assistant Superintendent of Post Office, to the police alleging that the respondent herein had misappropriated funds of 24 persons as detailed in the letter. The respondent was working as an Extra Departmental Branch Post Master during the period 3.3.1990 to 26.4.1994 and he had mis- 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 appropriated a sum of Rs.10,743/- in all from 24 accounts. The names of the persons had also been mentioned there. 3. Adverting to the prosecution case, the trial Court holds that Avtar Singh, Suneel, Kunju Devi, Matlabi Ram, Guddi Devi, Rajana Devi, Gurbachan, Ishro Devi, Brahmi Devi, Ranjeet Singh, Lajya Devi, Nirmla and Prithvi Raj had not been produced in evidence and therefore, there is no question of misappropriation of money from their accounts being proved as alleged. 4. Adverting to the case of Raj Kumar, the Court holds that he had appeared as PW-1, but did not support the prosecution case and did not make any allegation regarding misappropriation of money. He was cross- examined, but, nothing material could be elicited from his evidence. 5. Anita, who appeared as a witness, had stated that she had opened five Recurring Deposit Accounts in the names of her children, namely; Sunil Kumar, Ranju Bala, Neela Kumari, Meenakshi and Anubala, in which she deposits Rs.20/- each per month. After adverting to her evidence, the learned Judge notes that in her cross-examination she had stated that she had received the entire amount deposited by her and the accused did not misappropriate any money. 6. Similar is the position with the account of Shivani which was operated by her mother Goran. She also admitted in her cross-examination that no amount 3 had been misappropriated and that she had received the entire amount. 7. Adverting to the evidence of Fuli Devi, who had opened two accounts on behalf of the Mahila Mandal as its Pradhan, she states that Basoli Devi, who was Secretary, used to deposit the money in these accounts. Her statement is confused and when the learned Judge scrutinized the original pass book, he holds that whatever she stated in her evidence, was not in accordance with the prosecution case. Her case is also not accepted by the Court. 8. In the case of Ram Singh, the Court notes that he has made some general statement that he heard that some amount has been embezzled. The charge against the respondent was that he had embezzled a sum of Rs.4150/-, but Ram Singh says that he had received only a sum of Rs.40/- or 45/- short. The position of Suresh is also no different. His statement is only to the effect that he had heard that the accused- respondent had misappropriated the money and had run away. 9. In these circumstances, the evidence being general in nature, the Court held that no offence was made out against the accused. The second point urged against the respondent was that the complainant had induced the respondent to part with the money which point is not proved on consideration of the evidence. On the question as to whether the record is falsified, 4 again the Court does not find any satisfactory evidence. Learned Senior Additional Advocate General urges that the case is of serious nature and there is corroboration of falsification on the record. 10. We have gone through the record and find that most of the people whose accounts are alleged to be embezzled have not been produced in evidence. The other witnesses support the case of the defence or are unsure about what they are stating against the accused and have only made general allegations. 11. In these circumstances, we find that the learned trial Court has been correct in acquitting the accused for lack of evidence. There is no merit in this appeal, which is dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the respondent are discharged. (R.B. Misra) Judge August 4, 2011 (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.