JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal arises out of the judgment of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Raisingh Nagar dated August 3rd, 1971, by which the learned Magistrate acquitted Ramjas Rai of the offences under sections 477-A and 408 Indian Penal Code 2. I have heard arguments and perused the record. 3. The prosecution case is that accused-respondent Ramjas Rai was the Secretary of Rai Singh Nagar Cooperative Marketing Society, Rai Singh Nagar for the years 1954 to 1958. On September 10, 1956, 72 bags of wheat were sent for sale by the Samiti to the firm Doongarsidass Rambux of Ratangarh. A Hundi of Rs. 2,000/- was drawn towards the sale proceeds and that Hundi was ancashed and the amount was deposited in the Samiti. The remaining amount of Rs. 448/6/9 were taken by witness Pooran Chand from the aforesaid firm upon a written authority given to him by Ramjas Rai, The accused-respondent debited the aforesaid amount of Rs 2,000/-to Pooran Chand fraudulently, while no entry of any account was made in respect of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 448/6/9. It is alleged that in this manner, the respondent Ramjas Rai misappropriated an amount of Rs. 2,448/6/9. 4. The plea of the accused was that it was Pooran Chand who sent his wheat for sale through the Samiti. The sale proceeds belonged to Pooran Chand and were paid to him. The accused has also denied that he put his signatures on the entries in the record of the Samiti. 5. Pooran Chand (P. W. 2) deposed that he had no transaction of any kind with the Samiti and the entries relating to him in the account-books of the Samiti were forged. The learned Magistrate did not believe this statement of Pooran Chand because Paramjeet Singh (P. W. 5) was able to show that Pooran Chand had some entries relating to-Rs. 5,000/- in the account-books of the Samiti. But the learned Magistrate however, was not prepared to hold that the relevant entries in the account-books of the Samiti were in the hand of the accused. He was further of the view that there was no evidence to prove that the accused-respondent applied the aforesaid money for his own use. 6. 5,000/- in the account-books of the Samiti. But the learned Magistrate however, was not prepared to hold that the relevant entries in the account-books of the Samiti were in the hand of the accused. He was further of the view that there was no evidence to prove that the accused-respondent applied the aforesaid money for his own use. 6. As regards the amount which Pooran Chand directly received from the firm, Mahaveer Prasad (P. W. 1) deposed that out of the sale proceeds of the wheat sent by the Samiti for sale to them Rs. 2,000/- were paid towards the encashment of the Hundi. The remaining sum was paid by them to Pooran Chand. Pooran Chand (P. W. 2) admitted that he received that amount, but paid the same to the accused upon a receipt. That receipt, it appears, was also seized by the police, vide seizure memo Ex. P/3, but inspite of a search in the office of the Court and the police that receipt was not available. The learned Magistrate, therefore, concluded that it was not proved that this amount of Rs. 448/6/9 was paid by Pooran Chand to the accused. 7. From the evidence of Mahaveer Prasad (P.W. 1) it further transpires that this firm paid Rs. 2,000/- towards the Hundi. The amount of Rs. 2,000/- was deposited, no doubt, with the Samiti. Radhey Shyam (P. W. 4), who audited the accounts of the society, has deposed that this amount of Rs. 2,000/- was transferred to the ledger of Pooran Chand. He also said that when called, Pooran Chand denied this entry. In cross-examination this witness stated that the Khata of Pooran Chand was for the period from 1-7-56 to 30-6-57. In contained more than 20 entries. The entries in the Khata tally with the entries in the cash-book. The Society was doing the work of commission agency, but the society could not have sent the goods of the Adtiya outside. 8. The next important witness of the case is Pooran Chand (P. W. 2). He admits that he collected Rs. 448/6/9 from M/s. Doongarsidass Rambux under his own signatures which are in Ex. P/1. He says that he paid this amount to Ramjas Rai. He denied that the entry of Rs. 2,000/- showing payment to him thereof is correct. 8. The next important witness of the case is Pooran Chand (P. W. 2). He admits that he collected Rs. 448/6/9 from M/s. Doongarsidass Rambux under his own signatures which are in Ex. P/1. He says that he paid this amount to Ramjas Rai. He denied that the entry of Rs. 2,000/- showing payment to him thereof is correct. In cross-examination he deposed that in the relevant year his uncle Sitaram was the Manager of the Society. He denied that the wheat which was sent to Ratangarh, belonged to him. He also denied that he had any account with the society. 9. As far as the amount of Rs. 448/6/9 is concerned there is no satisfactory evidence on record to show that Pooran Chand gave this money to Ramjas Rai. Therefore, the learned Magistrate was right in holding that no case for the embezzlement of this sum was proved against the accused. 10. As regards the amount of Rs. 2,000/- the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the statement of Pooran Chand that he did not receive the money is a false one in view of the fact that he even went to the extent of denying any account with the Samiti. He has also denied that the wheat belonged to him. In such a situation it was the duty of the prosecution to show that the wheat was of the Samiti. Radhey Shyam (P. W. 4) was questioned on the point whether he checked any stock register of the Samiti. He said that he did not find out whether this shock of wheat was in fact of the Samiti. In the extract of his report Ex. P/6 A he had only said that it appeared to him that the sale proceeds of 70 bags of wheat which was possibly of the Beej Badhi, was misappropriated by the managers concerned. There is thus a lacuna in the prosecution case in as much as it has not been able to establish that this stock of wheat was of the Samiti either of Beej Badhi or of some other transaction. Radhey Shyam (P. W. 4) did say that the society had a stock register of wheat and in that register despatch of 72 bags was not shown. Radhey Shyam (P. W. 4) did say that the society had a stock register of wheat and in that register despatch of 72 bags was not shown. Here then, was a clear duty cast upon the prosecution to produce that stock register before the Court to connect this wheat as the sole property of the society. Unless it is proved by some cogent evidence that this wheat did belong to the Society, it is very difficult to refute the contention of the accused that the wheat belonged to Pooran Chand and the sale-proceeds were paid to him in the manner stated by him. 11. I have considered the matter in detail. I agree with the findings of the learned lower court that the prosecution has not cared to prove its case beyond any manner of reasonable doubt. It does not therefore, appear to me a fit case in which this Court may be called upon or inclined to interfere, 12. I, therefore, find no force in this appeal and dismiss the same. *******