HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2207 of 2004 Date:01.02.2011 Between: State of A.P., rep. by PP ….Appellants And: V. Davis G. Ham .…. Respondent. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2207 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This is an appeal filed by the State against the acquittal of the accused in C.C.No.303 of 1996 by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District on 31.8.2001. The case of the prosecution is that on 23.7.1996 at 4.00 p.m, K.V. Parthasarathi, the then District Manager, A.P.State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited (for short, APSCSCL), Ranga Reddy district lodged a complaint through D.Damodar Reddy, Grade-III, the then MLS point, Yacharam in-charge with relevant document copies stating that the accused has been posted as Godown In- charge at MLS point Yacharam on 31.3.1995 and the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District has pronounced the judgment in 6A case against the said accused and basing on the judgment the District Manager, SPSCSCL has suspended the accused and posted Damodar Reddy as Godown In-charge of Yacharam. A news item published in Eenadu daily, Ranga Reddy District Edition dated 27.6.1996 stating that a quantity of 12.4 mts., of rice misappropriated by the Godown in-charge. Immediately the District Supply Officer, R.R. District rushed to the MLS point Yacharam conducted physical verification of stock and conducted Panchanama and forwarded to the District Collector (CS), and the District Collector ordered the District Manager, APSCSCL to lodge a complaint in Yacharam police station and see that a criminal case should be booked against the said accused. Accordingly, K.V. Parthsarathi, the then District Manager, APSCSCL, Ranga Reddy District sent the complaint through D. Damodar Reddy and Sri V.Krishna Reddy, Office bearer to submit the records/reports/orders relating to the case. The police have registered the case in Crime No.58 of 1996 under Section 409 IPC and investigated into. During the course of investigation, the accused was arrested and remanded to the judicial custody. After completion of the investigation, it is established that from 31.3.1995 to 25.6.1996, the accused was in-charge of MLS point and during the said period, the accused supplied Public Distribution System rice, wheat and sugar etc., supplied by the Government of A.P., to the dealers under the Yacharam MLS point and the accused misappropriated the Public Distribution System rice, sugar, wheat to a tune of Rs.1,59,170.52 (Single economic cost) and Rs.3,18,341.65 (Double economic cost). Hence, the accused was prosecuted under Section 409 IPC. The lower court has framed a charge under Section 409 IPC against the accused and the accused pleaded not guilty for the said charge. In order to prove the charge, prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to P.W.9 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.30. No defence witnesses were examined on behalf of the accused. After taking into consideration of both oral and documentary evidence, the lower court found the accused not guilty for the offence under Section 409 IPC and has acquitted the accused by order dated 31.8.2001. Aggrieved by the said acquittal, the present appeal is filed by the State. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the prosecution could able to establish the charge under Section 409 IPC against the accused beyond reasonable doubt? The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was working as a Godown in-charge of MLS point, Yacharam village from 31.3.1995 to 25.6.1996. During the period, he supplied Public Distribution System rice, wheat and Sugar etc., supplied by the Government of A.P., to the various dealers under the Yacharam MLS point and the accused misappropriated the Public Distribution System rice, sugar, wheat to a tune of Rs.1,59,170.52. According to P.W.1 who initially checked about the shortage of the Public Distribution System articles which were in possession of the accused and submitted a report on 5.7.1996 but the said report was not placed before the lower court. Thereafter, the P.W.2 has conducted a Panchanama and seized the stock registers and other registers from the possession of the accused. P.W.4 is the person who was posted in the place of accused subsequent to his suspension and at that time, the charge list was handed over to the said Damodara Reddy. Therefore, according to the prosecution, there is a shortage of rice, sugar, wheat and which are said to be in the custody of the accused and he could not account for the said shortage. The lower court has clearly observed in the judgment that the prosecution has failed to produce original stock register as well as receipt registers and stock issuance register which were said to be seized by the P.W.2. The report submitted by the P.W.3 with regard to the stock available with the accused and also the shortage of the stock varies from one report to another report and the lower court has categorically found that there is variation of stock and shortage of stock. In order to establish the charge under Section 409 IPC, the prosecution has to establish that the stock was entrusted to the accused at the first instance and then he was in custody of the said stock and there was a shortage of the said stock and thereby he misappropriated the same. But, in the present case as rightly observed by the lower court, the prosecution could not establish the entrustment of stock to the accused as they have failed to produce the original stock register as well as the stock receipt register and stock issuance register, even though they were stated to be seized by P.W.2 on 27.6.1996. Further more P.W.1 is lodged the complaint on the instructions of the District Collector. According to him, at the first instance he has found the shortage of stock, but no complaint was lodged. The lower court has observed that there is delay of 25 days in lodging the complaint even after the District Collector made an endorsement for lodging a complaint against the accused and the same was not explained by the prosecution. Therefore, the prosecution could not establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has misappropriated the stock and he is responsible for the shortage of stock in the MLS point, Yacharam. Hence, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt and the lower court has rightly disbelieved the story of the prosecution and acquitted the accused. The learned Public Prosecutor could not point out any material before this Court to differ with the finding of the lower court.- Hence, the appeal fails. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. _____________________ P.DURGA PRASADJ. Date:01.02.2011 Gk. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2207 of 2004 Date:01.02.2011 Gk.