UMA NATH SINGH,J - (1.) THIS application for leave to appeal arises out a judgment dated 14.7.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rupnagar, in Crl. Appeal No. 9/11.8.2004, recording acquittal of the accused- respondent, while setting aside his conviction under Section 406 IPC and sentence of two years RI with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment, to undergo further RI of one month, recorded by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ropar, in Crl. Case No. RT 24/18.1.01/2.6.04 (FIR No. 14 dated 1.3.1997).
(2.) AS per prosecution case, it appears that a complaint was lodged by Teja Singh Sidhu, District Manager, PUNSUP, Ropar, to the SSP, Ropar against M/s. Deepak and Company, Kurali, alleging that they supplied paddy to the Rice Sheller allotted by DFSC and after shelling, the rice was supplied to the FCI and deposited in the accounts of PUNSUP. In the year 1995-96, the respondent company was allotted to PUNSUP and during that year, it was supplied 3111 bags of common variety and 37099 bags of fine variety, totalling 40210 bags weighing 26136.50 qtls. Apart from it, 16680 bags of fine variety were transferred from M/s. Guru Rice Mills, Kurali, and in that way, a total quantity of 56890 bags, weighing 36978.50 qtls., were supplied to the respondent company. Out of the said quantity of paddy, the firm supplied rice of 43925 bags of fine variety, weighing 28551.25 qtls. As per clause 5 of the agreement between the parties, the sheller was responsible for quality and quantity of rice and according to clause 5(1) of agreement, the parties were liable to deposit economic cost. As per clause 11, Rs. 40,000/- were deposited as security. Further, as per stock in the firm of Deepak and Company, 12965 bags should have been there in the premises, but allegedly on physical verification of the premises of the respondent company, conducted on 14.1.1997, the paddy in question was not found to be there and thus, in this way, the firm committed misappropriation of 12965 bags of paddy, weighing 8427.25 qtls. The value of the said quantity of item was assessed to be Rs. 4,71,990/-, and over and above that, the applicant was entitled to charge an interest @ 21%. Accordingly, a case was registered under Sections 406/420 IPC and a challan was laid against the respondent. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the judgment.
(3.) LEARNED counsel submitted that learned lower Appellate Court has committed a serious error in setting aside a well reasoned judgment of the trial Court only on the ground that initial onus to prove the entrustment was on the prosecution. The receipt (Ex. PW2/D), allegedly signed by Manjit Singh, was, admittedly, not signed by him. The prosecution could not prove the identity of Manjit Singh, who was said to have received those bags, from the side of M/s. Guru Rice Mills, no witness was examined to prove the transfer of 16680 bags as per instructions issued by the PUNSUP and received by M/s. Deepak and Company. Thus, the prosecution is not able to substantiate the allegations and bring home the charges against the accused-respondent. As regards the entrustment of 40210 bags, it was found that the accused-respondent had supplied rice equal to 43925 bags. Thus, the lower Appellate Court appears to be correct in coming to a finding that whatever paddy was supplied to the accused-respondent, he had returned the same back after shelling, as per the terms of the agreement.;