JUDGMENT - PADHYE, J.:---This is an appeal against the order of acquittal. The respondents accused was charged with an offence punishable under section 406 I.P.C. The charge against the respondent-accused was that the complainant Sudarshansingh had entrusted to the accused-respondent who is a gold-smith two gold bangles weighing about 32-½ grams of repairs and cleaning. The accused promised to give them back within a period of two months but he failed to return the same in spite of eight months. The complainant therefore lodged his complaint against him to the Police Station and the accused came to be arrested. 2. The accused is alleged to have given a writing Ex. 12 about his having received the gold bangles for repairs and cleaning. It is further the prosecution case that when demands were being made by the complainant, the accused passed on a note or a letter to the complainant saying that he would be returning the bangles within a short time. 3. The prosecution examined two witnesses besides the complainant to prove the entrustment of the gold bangles. The prosecution also examined one witness Sriram Sukhlal to prove the execution of the document, Ex. 12. 4. The accused denied to have executed the document Ex. 12 as well as the note or the letter Ex. 14. No attempt was made to prove the handwriting or the signature of the accused on those two documents, except the evidence of Sriram and the evidence of the complainant. The learned Magistrate disbelieved the evidence of this witness and of the complainant about the entrustment of the gold bangles to the accused. He also disbelieved the evidence of Sudarshansing about the execution of the receipt believed Ex. 12, holding that the entrustment was not proved. The learned Magistrate therefore acquitted the accused. The State has therefore filed the appeal against the said judgment of acquittal. 5. This being an appeal against acquittal the presumption of innocence is further strengthened and this Court would not ordinarily interfere unless there are strong reasons for such an interference and the reasoning given by the learned Magistrate while acquitting the accused is so perverse or unreasonable that interference is called for. 6. I have been taken through the evidence of the witnesses. The prosecution witness No. 2 Sriram is, in my view, a worthless witness. It is not case of the complainant that the document Ex. 6. I have been taken through the evidence of the witnesses. The prosecution witness No. 2 Sriram is, in my view, a worthless witness. It is not case of the complainant that the document Ex. 12 was written in a hotel of the Sudarshansingh. This witness, however, deposes that Sundarshansing and the accused both called him to the hotel of Sudarshansing and there the document was written. According to the complainant and the other witness the document was written in the shop of the accused. In view of this glaring discrepancy in the evidence of these two witnesses, it is not safe to rely on the evidence of Sriram on the execution of the document Ex. 12. Further this witness Sriram deposed that he was asked to write a document stating that the accused was to give 32-½ grams of gold to complainant Sundarshansing. In fact the document was to evidence receipt for gold bangles weighing 32-½ grams given to the accused by Sundarshansing. The evidence of this witness gives a contrary impression. The same thing has also been reiterated in the cross-examination. I therefore agree with the learned Magistrate that the evidence of this witness does not inspire confidence and help the prosecution case. 7. The complainant has stated that the two golden bangles or Patlis were given to the accused for repairs. In fact it was not necessary to give both the Patils for repairs because, according to the complainant, only one Patli had a crack and was required to be repaired. He said that the accused was known to him because in the year 1969 this very accused had prepared gold Patli which were subsequently given to the accused for repairs. At that time no receipt was taken from the accused. If that is so, then it is not known why the complainant should have approached the accused through Deoraj. It appears that Deoraj has been brought in by him to have corroboration to his evidence. If the accused was already known to the complainant since 1969 and he had already got the Patlis prepared from him, there was no reason for him to take Deoraj with him to the accused for the purpose of repairing the Patlis. It appears that Deoraj has been brought in by him to have corroboration to his evidence. If the accused was already known to the complainant since 1969 and he had already got the Patlis prepared from him, there was no reason for him to take Deoraj with him to the accused for the purpose of repairing the Patlis. Prosecution has examined two witnesses Kashiram, P.W. 4, and Deoraj, P.W. 5, to show that Patlis were given to the accused by Sundarshansingh in their presence and that they were weighed. These two witnesses are chance witnesses. In fact though the complainant stated that he had approached the accused through Deoraj, the evidence of Deoraj does not support it. The evidence of Kashiram and Deoraj show that both of them went independently of each other. None of them had accompanied the complainant. The evidence of Kashiram and Deoraj further show that the Patlis were weighed in their presence and they also give weight. According to Kashiram he went to the shop of the accused at about 6.30 p.m. and Deoraj, according to him, went to the shop of the accused at about 6-15 p.m. It appears that the complainant had gone to the shop much earlier. It is unnatural that the accused would weigh the Patlis each time these three persons went to the shop, once in the presence of the complainant, second time in the presence of Deoraj and the third time in the presence of Kashiram. The evidence of these two witnesses appears to me unnatural and it makes the presence of these two witnesses very doubtful. Since the documents, Exs. 12 and 14, are not proved in the handwriting of the accused and there is no evidence in support of the case of the complainant about the entrustment of the gold patlis to the accused, no case under section 406 I. P. C. has been made out against the accused. The learned Magistrate on appreciation of the evidence has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case of misappropriation against the accused. I do not see any to interfere with the finding of the learned Magistrate. 8. The appeal fails and is dismissed. The bail bond of the accused be cancelled. -----