JUDGMENT - PADHYE, J.:---The respondent accused Madhukar Shankar Paste was the Manager of the Sawantwadi Taluka Co-operative Agricultural Produce Sale and Purchase Society Ltd. (hereinafter called the (Society). He had been charged for misappropriating several items of amounts from the Society for different periods and there were three trials against him for three different periods. The trials were held simultaneously, though separately, and in all these three cases, he has been acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Even though three separate trials were held, the witnesses examined were common though separate depositions of both witnesses were recorded in each case. The learned Judge has dealt with these cases separately by giving different judgments, but we find it convenient to deal with all the three cases in one judgment. The State filed three appeals against the respondent-accused in each of these three cases. 2. Criminal Appeal No. 285 of 1973 arises out of Sessions Trial No. 56 of 1972. In this trial he was charged with the commission of the offence under sections 408 and 477-A of the I.P.C. The misappropriation is alleged to have been made during the period 3rd May, 1967 and 1st July, 1967 and the misappropriation is said to be of two items : (1) item of Rs. 5,225,84 and (2) 158 bags of cement worth about Rs. 1,850.60. The total amount of misappropriation is said to be of the value of 7,076.44. 3. The accounts of this Society are maintained from 1st July to 30th June which is their financial year. On Jaitpal (P.W. 7) who was an auditor of the District Central Co-operative Bank, Ratnagiri and a Senior Officer audited the accounts of the Society on 15th November, 1967 and for the accounting year 1966-67, he found the discrepancy in the aforesaid two items which, according to him, were the misappropriations by the accused therefore, made report to the Chairman of the Society. It appears that Sawant, who was a Special Auditor, also audited the account of the Society and made his report on 20th October, 1969. The report was sent to the District Deputy Registrar of the Societies. On receipt of this report, the District Deputy Registrar directed Salvekar (P.W. 2) to file a complaint which he did on 17th August, 1970 at the Sawantwadi Police Station. The report was sent to the District Deputy Registrar of the Societies. On receipt of this report, the District Deputy Registrar directed Salvekar (P.W. 2) to file a complaint which he did on 17th August, 1970 at the Sawantwadi Police Station. On the basis of this complaint, investigation was taken by P.S.I. Ingale, who could not be examined in the case as he was dead by the date the trial commenced, and on the basis of the evidence produced before him, the Magistrate thought that if the accused was held guilty in the three case he would not be able to impose adequate punishment commensurate with the gravity of the offence and, therefore, he committed the three cases to the Court of Sessions, who ultimately tried these three cases against the accused and acquitted him in all these three cases. 4. In the Sessions Trial No. 56/72 in respect of two items, the defence of the accused was that the closing balance of 30th June, 1967 has increased because of the credit of Rs. 5,226.76 shown as received from Malewad shop but actually the said cash was not received by the society from the Malewad shop that day. He further stated that the various amounts therein had actually been given under vouchers from time to time to the Malewad shop, but the local auditor said that the said amount had not been credited by the Malewad shop. He has further explained that Shri Naik and Shri Paranjape were then working in the Malewad shop and out of them Naik was related to Bhai Sawant, the Chairman of the Society and the local auditor of the Society Shri Patki told him at the time of the local audit that took place after 30th June, 1967 that he should show these amounts credited on 30th June, 1967 and calculate the closing balance as on 30th June, 1967 since the amounts were not credited in the Malewad shop, and that is how a credit entry of Rs. 5,226.76 was made in the accounts. 5. As regards the alleged misappropriation of 158 cement bags his defence was that 240 bags were received from the District Sangh for the purpose of the construction of societys godown and therefore entry of all these cement bags was not taken in the stock register. 5,226.76 was made in the accounts. 5. As regards the alleged misappropriation of 158 cement bags his defence was that 240 bags were received from the District Sangh for the purpose of the construction of societys godown and therefore entry of all these cement bags was not taken in the stock register. He explains that out of these 240 bags, 150 bags had been given to the Contractor of the Society Bal Anavkar and his receipts obtained. The said receipts were shown to the Special Auditor and a Rujavat was taken by Sawant in respect thereof from Bal Anavkar also. He then says that he had brought Anavkar to meet Sawant for the purpose at the time of the audit. He further says that after utilisation of 150 bags in the construction work, the remaining 82 bags were then available for sale and therefore they were taken to the stock register and he value thereof has been shown in the stock register. 6. On 30th June, 1967, which is the last day of that year, several entries have been made and in fact we find from page 263 of Kird that closing balance on that day was Rs. 1,474.40. It appears that the last two entries on the credit and debit side at page 263 were scored out and subsequently there are made more entries on that day, which are mostly cross or contra-entries. Almost at the need of this accounting an amount of Rs. 5,226.76 has been credited in the account book at page 286 to the Malewad shop and the entry reads as follows :- ^^eysokM nqdku osyksosyh gsM vkWQhldMwu pwdhus ojhy kk[ksyk tknk ukaos oxZ bkkysY;k jdek R;k kk[ksP;k ukaos tek gsM vkWfQl** Rendered in English the entry would read like this. "Malewad shop. The amount wrongly debited from time to time by the head office to the above branch i.e. Malewad shop, and thereby this amount has been credited to the account of Malewad shop and debited to the head office." 7. With this entry the total amount on the credit side was shown to be Rs. 44,745.89. The total expenditure shown as no the last day of the year was Rs. 39,745.89. With these entries the amount in balance at the end of the day would be Rs. With this entry the total amount on the credit side was shown to be Rs. 44,745.89. The total expenditure shown as no the last day of the year was Rs. 39,745.89. With these entries the amount in balance at the end of the day would be Rs. 6700.24 and that amount has been shown on the debit side as being cash in hand on that day. However, on the credit side an amount of Rs. 1,473.86 has alone been shown as being the amount carried forward as an opening balance in the next year, i.e. on 1st July, 1967. This figure of Rs. 1,473.86, detailed as closing balance, is before the entry of Rs. 5,226.76 was made. Below these entries at the end there appears an endorsement in the handwriting of the accused to the effect that the cash amount of Rs. 6,700.24 is with him and that he would make arrangement to the deposit this amount in the Bank. The vernacular endorsement runs thus :--- ^^jks[k jDde lgk gtkj lkrks o iSls pkschl ek= gh ekÖ;kdMs vlwu lnj fkydspk Hkj.kk cWaadsr dj.;kph O;oLFkk djhu** The accused admits his signature and the entry is also in his hand. The entries of 30th June, 1967 including the entry of Rs. 5,226.76, Rs. 1,473.86 and Rs. 6700.24 are admitted by the accused to be in mind. The endorsement quoted above is also admitted by the accused to be in his hand and signed by him. However, the endorsement does not bear any date and it appears from the original Kird that something was written below the signature of the accused but that seems to have been scored. It appears that when the audit was made the auditor has made an endorsement in crimson pencil at the end of that days entries to the effect that the balance of Rs. 6,700.24 to the deposited in Bank immediately. This endorsement has been made by Patki, who was a local auditor. This endorsement also does not bear any date. 8. Out of the two items said to have been misappropriated, we shall first take the item of the cement bags numbering 158. In fact there is no dispute that these 240 bags of cement were for the purpose of the construction of the Societys godown. It is also not disputed that the godown has been constructed. 8. Out of the two items said to have been misappropriated, we shall first take the item of the cement bags numbering 158. In fact there is no dispute that these 240 bags of cement were for the purpose of the construction of the Societys godown. It is also not disputed that the godown has been constructed. It is the case of the prosecution that in the construction of the godown cement has been utilised. This godown was constructed in the year 1965-66 and some time thereafter deposed by Laxman Sawant. Sawant, P.W. I., who was a special Auditor, Co-operative Consumers Society, Kolhapur. The godown was constructed through contractor Bal Anavkar. This Bal Anavkar has not been examined in the case. He would have been the best person to tell as to whether cement has been utilised in the construction of the godown and if so how much. No attempt has been made to find out as to when cement was issued and how much each time. If such an attempt had been made and Bal Anavkar had been examined it would have been possible to find out as to how much cement had been used in the construction of the godown and whether there could be any misappropriation of the cement as alleged by the prosecution. 9. If some cement had been used in the construction of the godown, there could not be misappropriation of 158 bags of cement as alleged by the prosecution or any quantity of cement whatsoever. Not attempt has been made in that direction either during the investigation or at the stage of trial. According to witness Sawant, P.W. I during the whole period of his audit, the Society had received only once the cement for the purpose of construction of the godown. It would be worthy of note that these cement bags were not for the purpose of sale and therefore normal entry regarding these bags could not have been taken in the stock and sale registers which are meant for goods for sale. Besides this, the evidence of the Special Auditor, P.W. I Sawant is very clinching and on the basis of his own evidence no liability can be fastened on the accused. Besides this, the evidence of the Special Auditor, P.W. I Sawant is very clinching and on the basis of his own evidence no liability can be fastened on the accused. In paragraph 7 of his deposition during the cross-examination the specifically states that there were two persons employed as godown-keepers in the society and the responsibility for the goods in the godown would be of the godown keeper. The accused was not the godown-keeper. He further states that the keys of the godown used to be with the godown keeper, and the godown keeper used to write the stock register the stock register. He further admits that no entry in the cement register is in the hand of the accused and further states that the register is actually of stocks and sales and only cement brought for sale used to entered in the register. He further on states that he did not receive any information as to the transport charges and Hamali charges in respect of these bags and to who actually had taken them into custody. The statement made by this witness in his evidence do not therefore show that the cement bags were entrusted to the accused and that he was in-charge was dealing with the same. On the contrary he speaks specifically that it was the responsibility of the godown-keepers who had themselves the bags in their custody and who had to deal with these bags. We therefore fail to understand as to how in the face of these statements made by the Special Auditor, the accused could be held responsible for the 158 bags which are said to have been not entered into the stock and sale registers. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has fully discussed this matter in paragraphs 25 and 26 of his judgment and found out that the evidence regarding this charge was insufficient to show that the accused had misappropriated any portion of the cement. We do not see any reason to take a different view than the one taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge with respect to the cement bags said to have been misappropriated by the accused. He was rightly held therefore not guilty of the charge. 10. As regards the second item of Rs. 5,225.84 we have set-out the explanation given by the accused as to in what circumstances this entry has been made in the Kird. He was rightly held therefore not guilty of the charge. 10. As regards the second item of Rs. 5,225.84 we have set-out the explanation given by the accused as to in what circumstances this entry has been made in the Kird. This amount admittedly is not a single item, but as the entry itself shows is made of different items. The Society was dealing in different kind of goods and had also been running two shops for that purpose, one at Bhedshi and the other at Malewadi. The Society used to supply goods to the two shops and whenever the goods were given to these shops these shops were debited with the value of goods supplied to them. Correspondingly these shops had to give credit to the society for the value of the goods received by them. In this case, we are concerned with the transaction by the Society and the Malewad shop. It appears that the entries in the account books of the Society and Malewad shop regarding the goods supplied do not tally and there was deficit of about Rs. 5,225.76 in the Malewad shop account books or perhaps thought that an amount of Rs. 5226.76 in several items was incorrectly debited to the Malewad shop from time to time and that was sought to be corrected by taking an entry of this amount on the last day of the year, i.e. on 30th June, 1967. In establishing that there was in fact a wrong debiting or excess debiting to the Malewad shop a mere taking of entry in the societys account books was not sufficient. It had to be shown with reference to the two account books, with reference to the different corresponding items and with reference to the vouchers to show that the Malewad shop either wrongly debited or credited for a greater amount than actually the case was. No attempt in that direction has been made. On the other hand, the prosecution witness No. 7 Jaitpal, who was a Senior Officer of the District Central Co-operative Bank, Ratnagiri, who audited the accounts stated in paragraph 7 of his deposition that regarding item of Rs. No attempt in that direction has been made. On the other hand, the prosecution witness No. 7 Jaitpal, who was a Senior Officer of the District Central Co-operative Bank, Ratnagiri, who audited the accounts stated in paragraph 7 of his deposition that regarding item of Rs. 5,225.84 he did not enquire with any other person that accused and he did not make any inquiry with any other person who wrote the opening balance on 1st July, 1967 as to why he had taken the opening balance as less. On being shown the entry of Rs. 5,225.76 on the credit side he stated that he did not inquire into the details regarding the same, nor did not accused tell him that the entry was made by mistake. Later on he stated that he did not examined every entry of the Kird. We have to observe that the auditor or the Senior Officer who examined the accounts fails to make a thorough enquiry into the matter and it was just superficial enquiry on the basis of which he seems to have come to the conclusion that the accused was responsible for the misappropriation of this amount. 11. It may be that there was something wrong in the accounts of the society or it may be that there may be something wrong in the accounts of the Malewad shop. Either there was wrong debiting to the Malewad shop in the Societys account books or wrong entries were taken or no entries were taken in the Malewad shop in respect of the goods or amounts supplied by the society to the said Malewad shop. The prosecution ought to have shown as to where the mistake lay and who was at default. That could have been done only by comparison of each individual item of transaction between the Malewad shop and the society and the entries in respect thereof with reference to vouchers or receipts or acknowledgement with respect to each transaction. Even the Special Auditor Laxman Sawant P.W. 1 has also stated that he could not give any particular item on credit side out of which, he says that amount of Rs. 5,225.84 has been misappropriated. He could not also say whether the same is composed of one item only or several. He made no enquiries whatsoever from Shirsat as to how he had shown Rs. 5,225.84 has been misappropriated. He could not also say whether the same is composed of one item only or several. He made no enquiries whatsoever from Shirsat as to how he had shown Rs. 1,474.70 as the opening balance on 1st July, 1967, thought the closing balance was shown to be Rs. 6700.24. He further stated that the credit entries of Rs. 5,226.76 would show from its particulars that actual cash of that amount was not received by the Society on that day. He had not taken any objection in his audit report that the amounts paid to the Malewad shop were not in fact paid, or that the entries in respect thereof were not true and ultimately he had to admit that he could not give the break-up of the amount of Rs. 5.226.76 and could not say that upto 29th June, 1967 particulars amounts were short paid to the Malewad shop and later stated that he would not be able to say out of which amounts debited to Malewad shop, how much of amounts were short paid. 12. In fact this witness did not do full checking but he admitted that his clerk checked entry by entry chronologically with vouchers, whereas he took Adhavs and looked up only serious lapses. This indicates that the full and complete audit has not been done by this witness. According to him, some vouchers were not forthcoming although there was a voucher number, but this important fact has not been reported by him in his audit report. He even does not remember who was then his assistant who had done the primary checking. He had got the notes made by his assistant who had done the primary checking. He had got the notes made by his assistant but those notes have not been produced. 13. In this state of affairs, the Special Auditors cannot be said to have taken due care in actually finding put with reference to the entries in the societys account books and the Malewad shop account books and with reference to the different vouchers as to whether there was really any misappropriation by the accused. Merely saying that there was misappropriation would not be enough and a mere entry of Rs. Merely saying that there was misappropriation would not be enough and a mere entry of Rs. 5,226 and odd on the credit side in the societys shop books and the differences between the closing balance of the year 1966-67 and the opening balance of 1967-68 could not be enough for holding the alleged misappropriation. 14. The prosecution then relied upon the so-called admission or confession by the accused as per Exh. 31 dated 15th November, 1967 to the Senior Officer Jaitpal. This statement purports to have been addressed by the accused to the Senior Officer. According to the accused, he accepts that this statement Exh. 31 is in his hand and bears his signature but in his statement under section 342, Cr. P. C. (Old) he explains the circumstances under which this statement was given. According to him, the contents of the said statement was false. He states that on 15th November, 1967 Jaitpal had come to the Societys Office. He demanded accounts for inspection. The accused gave him the main Kird and other accounts demanded by him. Jaitpal asked the accused about the entry of 31st August, 1966. He gave the true account of the same and Jaitpal said that he was convinced that the accused had misappropriated the amount and asked him to give a writing like that. According to him, Jaitpal threatened to have him hander over to the police if he did not give a writing like that. He was terrified and therefore at the dictation of Jaitpal he wrote the statement Exh. 31 and signed. Thus his defence is that this statement was not freely and voluntarily made but was in fact under correction and threats from Jaitpal in which Bhai Sawant, the then Chairman of the Society had also joined. This statement refers to a total figure of Rs. 24,083.12 and the statement recites that he used this amount from the amount of the Sangh for his private work and that he would manage to deposit the said amount till 15th January, 1968. No details about this amount of Rs. 24,000 and odd has been given in the statement. It is not clear from the statement whether this amount of Rs. 5,000 and odds is included in the said amount and in what manner. He has resiled from that statement, Exh. 31, in the trial. 15. No details about this amount of Rs. 24,000 and odd has been given in the statement. It is not clear from the statement whether this amount of Rs. 5,000 and odds is included in the said amount and in what manner. He has resiled from that statement, Exh. 31, in the trial. 15. So far as this case is concerned, it is not at all clear from the statement whether the accused had accepted the responsibility for this amount also. Even assuming that the amount of Rs. 5,000 and odd involved in this case as also the value of the cement bags said to have been misappropriated is included in this sum, even then the so-called admission cannot fasten the guilt on the accused if it is otherwise not established that the accused has misappropriated that amount. 16. In this case, we have found that the prosecution has not been able to substantiate the case of misappropriation of any of the two items by the accused and has not succeeded in establishing the misappropriation of any of the two items. In view of this, the so-called admission of the accused will not in any manner help the prosecution. The accused has also given an explanation as to in what circumstances an amount of Rs. 11,000 came to be credited by him on 17th November, 1967. On 16th November, 1967 he was suspended from the service of the society in view of the audit made on 15th November, 1967 and his statement shows that there was a great pressure brought on him for depositing the amount and it was his father who arranged to deposit the said amount in order to avoid his family being disgraced. We are not satisfied that the statement made by the accused as per Exh. 31 was a free or voluntary act on his part or that the amount has been deposited by the father of the accused was also a free and voluntary act on his part. 17. Since neither the misappropriation of the amount of Rs. 5,226 and odd nor of the 158 bags of cement has been established in the present case, we do not think that the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge below acquitting the accused of the offence involved in this case could in anyway be said to be erroneous. 17. Since neither the misappropriation of the amount of Rs. 5,226 and odd nor of the 158 bags of cement has been established in the present case, we do not think that the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge below acquitting the accused of the offence involved in this case could in anyway be said to be erroneous. We therefore see no reason to interfere with the acquittal of the accused in this case. Accordingly, this appeal must fail and is dismissed. 18. There is another appeal by that State against the acquittal of the respondent-accused arising out of Sessions Case No. 57 of 1972. This is Criminal Appeal No. 286 of 1973. In this case, the amount involved is Rs. 18,698.08 during the period from 30th December, 1965 to 29th December, 1966. The misappropriation is said to be with respect to seven items and these items are: (1) Rs. 29 dated 30th December, 1965, (2) Rs. 1,258.25 dated 28th February, 1966, (3) Rs. .050 dated 5th March, 1966, (4) Rs. 238.10 dated 30th April, 1966 and Rs. 2828.82 dated 12th May, 1966, (6) Rs. 19.72 dated 13th May, 1966 and Rs. 19,261.93 dated 30th June, 1966. The total amount alleged to have been misappropriated is Rs. 18698.08. Out of this seven items it was conceded at the stage of trial that there was no case so far as items Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 6 were concerned. The Special Auditor, P.W. 1 Laxman Sawant in his cross-examination has accepted that the amount of Rs. 14,111.46 has in fact been credited to the District Sangh by the Society and there was no actual misappropriation for this amount and for the amount of Rs. 5,018.47 and he himself has given benefit in this report to the accused regarding the same for the entire period of audit. The learned Judge has dealt with these items in Para 25 of judgment and has observed that the Special Auditor has himself accepted the explanation of the accused in respect of Items Nos. 2, 3, 5, and 6. He has also accepted the explanation of the accused in respect of the two big amounts in Item No. 7 and the learned Judge, therefore, found that correctly, so that there was no misappropriation with regard to these items. We are therefore left only with three items out of the seven items. i.e. Items Nos. 2, 3, 5, and 6. He has also accepted the explanation of the accused in respect of the two big amounts in Item No. 7 and the learned Judge, therefore, found that correctly, so that there was no misappropriation with regard to these items. We are therefore left only with three items out of the seven items. i.e. Items Nos. 1, 4, and part of Items No. 7, for consideration. 19. So far as Item No. 1 is concerned, it is comprised of Rs. 39 only Special Auditor P.W. 1 Laxman Sawant refers to two credit entries of Rs. 880.10 and Rs. 401.05 which are regarding sale of manure on credit to Sasoli Society on 28th December, 1965. He admits there that an item of Rs. 39 is found on the credit side as commissioning on these sales and the total amount being Rs. 1,320.15. This amount is debited in the consignment Kird on the very day on the credit side on account of Sasoli Society. This was not a cash transaction and the books show that the amount of commission of Rs. 39 which is said to have been misappropriated might have been credited by the Bank to the cash credit account of the Society. Even the Bank account of the society was audited by this witness and it tallied generally with the pass book. He cannot point out the date or amount by which it was so done and the credit entry in the main Kird of Rs. 82.07 showing that it was towards commission as per Bank slip was not brought towards his notice at the time of audit, though the entry mentioned that the Bank slip was dated 30th December, 1965. He has frankly admitted that it was possible that the amount of Rs.39, the item of the alleged misappropriation, is included in the said amount of Rs. 82.07 which has already been credited in the account book. If that is so, we fail to see how it can be said that in the amount of Rs. 39 has been misappropriated by the accused. 20. So far as Item No. 4 is concerned, the alleged misappropriation is said to be of Rs. 12. With respect to this the Special Auditor P.W. 1 Laxman Sawant stated that this is out of a large amount of Rs. 39 has been misappropriated by the accused. 20. So far as Item No. 4 is concerned, the alleged misappropriation is said to be of Rs. 12. With respect to this the Special Auditor P.W. 1 Laxman Sawant stated that this is out of a large amount of Rs. 238.10 which is debited in the main Kird for 30th April, 1966, is composed of four items, viz., Rs. 12 towards godown rent, Rs. 180.80 towards transport charges. Rs. 42 towards Hamali charges and Rs. 3.30 towards travelling allowance. He deposed that on the credit side there was only one item of Rs. 226.10 and therefore be drew an inference that Rs. 12 towards godown rent have not been credited to the consignment, and that is how he says that this amount is misappropriated. He had to admit that if this amount of Rs. 12 is not credited and also not debited in the consignment kird would not be affected. He says that he enquired whether the amount of Rs. 12 had been paid as rent but did not record any statement regarding the same not has he made any mention about this in his inquiry in his report nor has he mentioned that he found that Rs. 12 were not paid towards rent specifically. Admittedly, the godown was taken on rent and in the normal course the rent could be paid periodically. Accordingly to the accused, it was Shirsat who wrote the item in the main Kird and it was for Ghag to credit the item or rent in the main Kird and debit the same in the consignment Kird also. No evidence has been produced, though it was possible to do so, to show that the godown rent for that month has not actually been paid to the landlord of the godown. There does not appear to be any complaint from the landlord that the godown rent for that period has not been paid by the Society. This amount has in fact been debited in the main Kird. What has not been done is that it has not been taken in the consignment Kird. This godown belonged to one L.V. Ghotge. This Ghotge has not been examined to show that the rent was not paid to him or that he had not received the rent. This amount has in fact been debited in the main Kird. What has not been done is that it has not been taken in the consignment Kird. This godown belonged to one L.V. Ghotge. This Ghotge has not been examined to show that the rent was not paid to him or that he had not received the rent. It would have been very easy for the prosecution to show that the amount of rent for the period in question was not paid to the landlord. This having not been done it cannot be said that the amount has been misappropriated by the accused. 21. Then there is the third and the last item, i.e. Item No. 7. The amount alleged to be misappropriated under this item is said to be Rs. 19,261.93, but at the stage of the trial the Special Auditor P.W. Laxman Sawant had to concede two items out of this, being Rs. 14,111.46 and 5,018.47 totalling to Rs. 19,129.93 leaving a balance of Rs. 132 only. Therefore at the stage of trial, the item alleged to have been misappropriated dwindled down only to Rs. 132. In respect of these two big items of Rs. 14,000 and odd and Rs. 5,000 and odd benefit has already been given to the accused by the Special Auditor himself. This entry of Rs. 132 of 30th June, 1966 is not of a cash receipt but is only a contra-entry and only defect or the irregularity seems to be that the amount has not been credited in the consignment Kird which ought to have been done. This ordinarily should have been done by Ghag or and at the most it would be case of negligence either on the part of Ghag or may be the accused, but certainly it is not a case of any misappropriation of the amount. It has not been established that the Society has been put to a monetory loss to the extent of this amount has been misappropriated. The learned Judge was therefore, right in holding that it has not been proved that this amount of Rs. 132 of Item No. 7 has been misappropriated by the accused. 22. Thus we find that none of the item of the alleged misappropriated in this case has been proved by the prosecution and the accused could not be held guilty for the same. 132 of Item No. 7 has been misappropriated by the accused. 22. Thus we find that none of the item of the alleged misappropriated in this case has been proved by the prosecution and the accused could not be held guilty for the same. The learned Judge, therefore, was right in acquiring the accused in this case. We therefore uphold the judgment of acquittal of the trial Court in this case also and dismiss the appeal by the State. 23. The third appeal against the same accused is Criminal Appeal No. 289/733 arising out of Session No. 55 of 1972. The period of the alleged misappropriation is said to be between 2nd July, 1966 and 1st July, 1967 and the amount involved is said to be Rs. 6,130.07 consisting of five items. These five items are said to be: (1) Rs. 148 dated 2nd August, 1966, (2) Rs. 500 dated 22nd December, 1966, (3) Rs. 00.01 dated 7th April, 1967, (4) Rs. 60 dated 23rd May, 1967 and (5) Rs. 20,943.69 dated 30th June, 1967 totalling to Rs. 21,651.70 out of which Rs. 14,111,46 has been paid to the District Sangh but had not been debited in the account and a sum of Rs. 1,047.70 was in excess in the accounts composed of different sums and an amount of Rs. 3,262.47 was in excess credit. Making allowances for these sums the total defalcation was alleged to be the tune of Rs. 6,130.07. Out of this Item No. 3 of one paisa was not pressed in the trial Court as well as here. 24. Regarding Item No. 1 of Rs. 148, this is out of an amount of Rs. 234 which has been debited to the main Kird as on account of consignment Kird. Reason for considering entry dated 2nd August, 1966 of Rs. 234 as not genuine was that it was not made in the consignment Kird, and that, according to him is the only reason why this entry is not a genuine one. The item is also regarding the rent of the godown. He did not try to find out whether the godown rent was actually paid or not. 234 as not genuine was that it was not made in the consignment Kird, and that, according to him is the only reason why this entry is not a genuine one. The item is also regarding the rent of the godown. He did not try to find out whether the godown rent was actually paid or not. The explanation given by him was that the information regarding the godown on rent at that date was not available and he did not enquire with the Chairman of the Society at that date or at the date of audit or with the Vice-Chairman regarding the godown hired by the Society. He is alleged to have enquired about this only from the accused. While auditing the main Kird he was encircled in green pencil the item of Rs. 234 as this item has not at all been credited in the main Kird. However, he has not shown in his report that the whole of the item of Rs. 234 is one which defalcation has taken place. In fact the accused has not been charged with misappropriating the amount Rs. 234 by the said charge is confined only Rs. 148. When the Special Auditor P.W. 1 Laxman Sawant was confront with this he had to accept that there no item of debit of Rs. 148 in the Kird for that date and his explanation is that a portion of the item of Rs. 234 has been actually spent, for which he got the information. However, surprisingly there is no note of such information in his audit report and had to rely only on this memory for that purpose at the stage of trial. He could not even say without looking into the consignment Kird as to whether the portion of the item allowed by him was spent for godown rent only or for any other purpose and he is content by saying that he must have got some information about godown rent then about which he was satisfied. His further statement is important. He stated that if in the main Kird the purpose for which the debit is made on account of consignment Kird is shown as godown rent, and if it is credited to the consignment Kird and debited the same day for some other purpose, they would not take objection if the expenditure on the other purpose was found to be genuine. This would show that there is only an irregularity in posting the entry in the consignment Kird and the amount is not an actual defalcation for which the accused could be held responsible. 25. According to the accused, he had offered his explanation with respect to this amount of Rs. 234 including Rs. 148 and that explanation had been accepted by the Special Auditor Sawant. This amount has been considered in detail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in paragraph 39 of his judgment. The Society has admittedly taken godowns on rent which this amount represent. There does not appear to be any complaint from owner of the godown about the non-receipt of the rent of the godown. It does not appear that the landlord of the godown was questioned in this connection and no attempt seems to have been made to find out as to whether the rent was actually paid or not. Even in the trial the landlord of the godown has not been examined to find out whether the amount of rent is actually paid to him or not. Had that been done it would have been possible to find out whether the godown rent has in fact been paid or not or whether any amount has been misappropriated by the accused or any other person. In the absence of such evidence, we are unable to hold, as has been done by the trial Court, that there has been any misappropriation of the amount of Rs. 148 as has been alleged by the prosecution. 26. The next item is of Rs. 500 dated 22nd December, 1966. In fact a general statement has been made by Special Auditor Laxman Sawant, P.W. 1, that whenever items debited in the main Kird on account of consignment Kird were not credited to the consignment Kird, according to him, that was misappropriation. In fact he did not investigate while making the audit from the point of view of finding out as to whether any amount has been misappropriated or not. His investigation was confined only for the purpose of audit and it was only from audit point of view i.e. to find out as to whether any explanation given in admissible or not from the audit point of view or whether any entry made in the account books could be accepted or not. So far as this amount of Rs. His investigation was confined only for the purpose of audit and it was only from audit point of view i.e. to find out as to whether any explanation given in admissible or not from the audit point of view or whether any entry made in the account books could be accepted or not. So far as this amount of Rs. 500 was concerned, it was shown as a debit entry on 22nd December, 1966 and against that entry number of receipt was also mentioned. This would show that this item is supported by receipt or a voucher, and if that was so then from the audit point of view no objection could be taken to such an entry, showing the explanation and no misappropriation could also be alleged unless it was shown that the receipt was not genuine one. P.W. 1 Laxman Sawant however gave an explanation that he could not get the receipt No. 712 which has been mentioned against this entry. He goes on to say that there was no necessity to see vouchers in respect of Rs. 500 and all that was needed to look into was to see whether item of Rs. 500 had been credited to the consignment Kird and the omissions to credit this amount in the consignment Kird, according to him, amounts to defalcation. In fact he does not seem to have made any investigation as to whether this amount of Rs. 500 were in fact incurred towards the transport charge, nor any investigation on this line seems to have been made by the Police before submitting charge-sheet. The witness has allowed items debited in the main Kird on account of the consignment Khata even though they were not supported by formal vouchers in some cases, but not allowed items which are not taken in the consignment Kird. We think that the reasons given by this witness for not accepting the correctness of theses entries is not correct. In fact if the entries are not supported by vouchers then that entries required some investigation to find out whether the amount in respect of which an entry has been made has really been received or spent and on such investigation it could be found out as to whether there was misappropriation or not. In fact if the entries are not supported by vouchers then that entries required some investigation to find out whether the amount in respect of which an entry has been made has really been received or spent and on such investigation it could be found out as to whether there was misappropriation or not. On the other hand if the amount is shown to have been properly accounted for with reference to vouchers but is credited or debited in one set of account books, and not credited or debited to another set of books, by making corresponding entries, then it could be a case of mere irregularity which may not show any misappropriation. It is from this point of view the investigation should have been made both by the auditor as well as by the Police who had undertaken investigation. This obviously has not been done in the present case and it could not be said on the basis of this evidence that this amount of Rs. 500 has been misappropriated or with respect to this amount loss has been caused to the society. We agree with the learned Judge that this item has also not been proved as an item of misappropriation. 27. We then come to the 4th item, leaving out Item No. 3 which has not been pressed even in the lower Court. This refers again to the rent of the godown known as Rajguru godown. There is any entry 23rd May, 1967 regarding the payment of rent in respect of this Rajguru godown. With respect of this enquiries have only been made from the accused and no other enquiries from other source have been made. We do not find any papers or any notices from the landlord complaining that he has not received rent. He says that he insisted upon receipt for payment of rent, but it was not forthcoming not the amount was transferred to the consignment Kird and therefore he stated that the amount has been misappropriated. He could not give any other reason for this conclusion of his. 28. The best evidence would have been of Rajguru, landlord of the godown, and he would have shown whether the rent for the period in question has been paid or not. He could not give any other reason for this conclusion of his. 28. The best evidence would have been of Rajguru, landlord of the godown, and he would have shown whether the rent for the period in question has been paid or not. For reason best known to the prosecution Rajguru has not been examined and there is nothing to show that the amount of rent had not been paid. In fact the Special Auditor P.W. 1 Laxman Sawant did not mention in his Audit Report that the accused has failed to show the rent receipt and he disallowed this item not because there was no voucher or rent receipt but because the entry was not transferred to the consignment Kird in case of many other items. Even though there were no vouchers. He allowed those items. Misappropriation of this amount also has not been established by the prosecution. 29. Last item in this case if Item No. 5. The total amount of misappropriation was alleged to be to the tune of Rs. 20,943.69. It was stated that this amount was not credited to the main Kird till 30th June, 1967 on which day it was so credited, though that amount had not been received by the Society on that day from outsiders. This amount which fell short on 31st August, 1966, came to be shown as credited. He was the paddy Kird for 31st August, 1966, as well as the paddy stock register and even after looking the main Kird for 31st August, 1966 he could not say if the accused showed Rs. 20,943.69 as paid out of the opening balance. His report however showed that this amount was withdrawn from the Bank in the cash credit account and debited in the Kird on 31st August, 1966. Out of this total amount, this amount of Rs. 14,114.45 which he himself deducted in his audit was nowhere debited in the accounts. During the audit he first took out the misappropriation of Rs. 20,265.03 from the account books. After getting the explanation from the accused that some amounts were credited to the District Sangh but which were not passed through the main Kird or the consignment Kird that some amounts were credited to the consignment he accepted those explanations for this amount and reduced the amount and reduced the amount of misappropriation. 20,265.03 from the account books. After getting the explanation from the accused that some amounts were credited to the District Sangh but which were not passed through the main Kird or the consignment Kird that some amounts were credited to the consignment he accepted those explanations for this amount and reduced the amount and reduced the amount of misappropriation. The enquiry made by the Special Auditor Laxman Sawant P.W. 1 showed that the accused was not obtaining information about the credits from the District Sangh regularly. That would show that the accused was not acting diligently and there were certain irregularities in keeping himself posted with the correct position vis-a-vis the District Sangh. That, however, could not amount to any misappropriation. The Special Auditor also accepted other explanation of the accused regarding some other amounts out of this amount. Even in respect of Rs. 1,047 and Rs. 362 the auditor only put the blame on the accused for failing to take them from the consignment Kird to the Main Kird. The accused had given an explanation with regard to this entry of Rs. 20,943.69 as a sheer contra-entry. At the year end i.e. 30th June, 1967 the same amount has been credited in the main Kird on account of paddy by mistake. On realisation of the mistake, the said amount was taken as recredit of the debit on account of paddy and debited to the consignment Kird. Even the other witness Jaitpal, P.W. 6, has stated that the entry of Rs. 20,943.69 in the main Kird for 31st August, 1966 was not found in the paddy Kird and therefore the cash balance for the day had been reduced by that amount. The said amounts could have been credited to the paddy Kird but was not done. He had seen the paddy Kird but in his report did not mention that there was any defalcation in respect of Rs. 20,943.69 because the said amount was not found in the paddy Kird. That would show that even Jaitpal who had examined the account books did not consider any misappropriation with respect to the amount or any part of it. The two witnesses, Laxman Sawant, P.W. 1, and Jaitpal P.W. 6, gave divergent versions about this item of Rs. 20,943.69. 20,943.69 because the said amount was not found in the paddy Kird. That would show that even Jaitpal who had examined the account books did not consider any misappropriation with respect to the amount or any part of it. The two witnesses, Laxman Sawant, P.W. 1, and Jaitpal P.W. 6, gave divergent versions about this item of Rs. 20,943.69. According to Jaitpal, as he did not find a corresponding credit entry of this amount in the paddy Kird on 31st August 1966 he suspected that there was defalcation of the amount on that day. According to Laxman Sawant P.W. 1 he had seen the paddy Kird but because there was no corresponding credit entry on 30th June, 1967 in the consignment Kird for the same, he considered this to be a misappropriation of amount. Even then the two witness did not agree even over the figure. According to Jaitpal, P.W. 6, the whole of amount alleged to be misappropriation, whereas P.W. 1, Sawant says that the amount alleged to be misappropriated is very much less. It would appear that the prosecution is not sure as to whether there is any defalcation or if so of how much amount. It appears that these two witness did not give proper consideration in arriving at a conclusion as to whether there was any misappropriation at all and if so what amount. Big amount like Rs. 14,111.46 which were paid to the District Sangh by the accused as also other items had not been taken into consideration while considering the question of alleged defalcation. 30. As had already been stated in respect of the other items this was not a proper method of finding out any defalcation. Entry by entry should have been considered and it should have been seem whether they were supported by voucher, where there was any error in posting of any entry in the different registers and after a full examination of these matters a conclusion should have been drawn as to whether there could be or was any misappropriation and of what amount. The approach, which seems to have been made by these two authorities and by the police who acted on the basis of report of the two authorities was only casual and without going deep into the matter. We thus do not find that any misappropriation in respect of this item has been established by the prosecution. The approach, which seems to have been made by these two authorities and by the police who acted on the basis of report of the two authorities was only casual and without going deep into the matter. We thus do not find that any misappropriation in respect of this item has been established by the prosecution. It would thus appear that even, in this case, the prosecution has failed to establish that the accused had misappropriated any amount as alleged much less the whole amount. This appeal therefore must fail and is dismissed. 31. In the result all the three appeals by the State against the acquittal of the accused fail and are dismissed. 32. Bail bonds of the accused are cancelled. -----