PRADEEP KUMAR, J. - (1.) THIS Government Appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 31st July, 1997 passed by Sri Bishwanath Prasad Singh, Additional Judicial Commissioner, Lohardaga in Criminal Appeal No. 63 of 1996(L)/8 of 1996, by which judgment the learned AJC, Lohardaga, has passed the judgment of acquittal against the respondent.
(2.) IT is submitted by the learned APP that the report of the Assistant Conservator of Forest, which was the basis on which the case was filed properly has proved and the same was also supported by the evidence of P.W. 2, Baikunth Nath Dwivedi. The learned trial court relying on the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 coupled with the report of the accused himself dated 17.10.2002 which was available at page 14 of the case diary rightly convicted the respondent and impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the Additional Judicial Commissioner is bad in law and fit to be set aside and the appeal should be remanded back for fresh hearing. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the judgment of Additional Judicial Commissioner is well founded since under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code there must be entrustment of property and the two witnesses P.Ws. 2 and 3 have failed to prove by evidence or by any document that what was the amount of foodgrains and oil, entrusted to the respondent. They have also failed to prove the Register which could have shown the amount of foodgrain and oil, distributed amongst the labourers. Since, the foodgrain was meant for the distribution amongst the labourers in the forest and as such the learned appellate court rightly acquitted the respondent. He has further submitted that a copy of report given by accused in carbon copy was available in the case diary dated 17.10.1992, which was not proved in the trial and hence the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner rightly found that the same cannot be relied on for passing the judgment of conviction against the respondent.
(3.) AFTER hearing both the parties and going through the report, I find that the prosecution case was started on the basis of a First Information Report lodged by informant (P.W. 2) stating therein that the respondent -accused, Peter Shanti Kujur was incharge of the distribution of food - grain to the labourers in Logging area of Lohardaga, under the World Food Programme. During inquiry on 25.11.1992 he found that shortage of about 12385 Kgs. of wheat, 823.050 Kgs. of Pea and 783.7720 Kgs. of soyabin oil.;