STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. S. KANNAIAH M. SANYASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is preferred by the State assailing the judgment and order dated 2-2-2010 passed by the Fast Track Court-I, Raichur in Criminal Appeal No. 22/2008 by which the judgment dated 24-3-2008 passed by the Principal JMFC-II Court, Raichur, in C.C. No. 262/1996, convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 409 of Penal Code has been set aside.

(2.) Case of the prosecution in brief is that the accused was discharging the duties of Room Manager in Non-vegetarian Refreshment Room at Raichur Railway Station during June, 1994. He was required to remit the total amount of Rs. 94,256.00 to the Railway Authorities which has been received by him towards the sale proceeds, but he remitted only an amount of Rs. 60,683.00 on different dates, thereby there was a short remittance of Rs. 33,573.00. It is further case of the prosecution that the said work has been entrusted to the accused but while remitting the amount, he has remitted less amount by escalating the figures and thereby misappropriated the Government money of Rs.33,573.00 which has been entrusted to him. On the basis of the complaint, after investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed. On appearance of the accused, copies of the prosecution papers were supplied to him and after hearing both parties, charge came to be framed. The accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried and as such the trial was fixed.

(3.) In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined 6 witnesses and got marked 32 documents as per Exs. P1 to P32, whereas on behalf of the accused, no evidence was led, but however, he got marked Exs. D1 to D17. After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused came to be examined under Sec. 313 of Crimial P.C. After hearing the arguments on both sides and on evaluation of the material on record, the Court below convicted the accused. Being aggrieved by such order, the accused preferred an appeal before the Fast Track Court-I, Raichur, which came to be allowed by setting aside the order of conviction thereby acquitting the accused. As against the said order of acquittal, the State is before this Court in this appeal.