STATE OF H P Vs. SUKHDEV CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simla, dated 14th November, 1979 vide which the learned Magistrate acquitted the respondent Sukh Dev Chand of the offence under section 408 I.P.C.

(2.) The respondent was charged and tried for the offence punishable under section 408 IPC on the allegations that during the period from 1.7.1976 to 4.3.1977 while employed as Salesman with Naya Bazar Co-operative Consumers Store Shimla and in that capacity entrusted with certain articles worth Rs. 92,131. 73 had committed criminal breach of trust with respect to a part of that property valued at Rs. 36,665.91. The prosecution case in short was that the respondent in his capacity as salesman of Sanjauli Branch of Naya Bazar Co-operative Store Ltd., had been entrusted with various articles sold at that store. He had been placing indents with the Head Office from time to time and in pursuance thereof supplies had also been made to the respondent. During the period from July 1976 till March 1977 the respondent had received articles worth Rs. 61,642.92 from the main Naya Bazar Shimla store vide indents Nos. 90] to 916 and during the same period he had also received articles worth Rs. 2578.64 by transfer from other stores. Another salesman Prem lal on 10.3.1977 also handed over the charge of articles worth Rs. 21,864.73 to the respondent this manner the respondent had received articles of the total value of Rs. 92,131.73 during the period from July 1976 to March, 1977. As against the aforesaid articles the respondent had deposited a sum of Rs. 55,465 82 only as sale proceeds of articles which he had sold during the aforesaid period. Thus articles of the net value of Rs. 36,665.91 were supposed to have remained with the respondent at the end of March, 1977. The respondent was, however, unable to render and account of these articles.

(3.) The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after appreciating the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to establish entrustment of articles of the alleged value to the respondent and in the absence of entrustment which was an essential ingredient of the offence of criminal misappropriation, no case was made out against the respondent.