Short Note : The facts leading to this revision as per prosecution case are that at the relevant time Balmukund Dube PW1 was working as Head Master in the Madhyamic Vidyalaya, Ajandakot and his salary was paid through the office of the Vikas Sahayak, Manawar. His application for withdrawal of a loan of Rs. 816 from his G.P. Fund for his daughter's marriage was sanctioned. 2. On 8-6-72, the applicant, who was the accountant in the office of the Vikas Sahayak, Manawar, withdrew a sum of Rs. 4,024 from the treasury which included the amount of Rs. 816 sanctioned and meant for payment to Balmukund PW1. It was alleged that instead of paying this amount of Rs. 816 to Balmukund, the applicant forged the signature of Balmukund and showed disbursement of this amount in the account book on 19-6-72. However, this amount in fact was never paid to Balmukund and, on 5-7-72 when Balmukund came to Manawar to enquire about the loan, he was met at the bus stand by the applicant who took Balmukund to his residence along with Hiralal PW.8 and, there, disclosed to Balmukund that he had spent out the loan amount of Rs. 816 by withdrawing the same in the name of Balmukund and that he was prepared to execute a promissory note for Rs. 800. Further, according to the prosecution, the applicant paid Rs. 16 to Balmukund in cash and executed a pro-note Ex.P/1 for Rs. 800 in his favour, the same day. Held : PW.1 Balmukund Dube has stated that when he did not receive the sanctioned loan, he complained to Harishankar PW.7 on 5-7-72 and lodged a written complaint Ex.P/3 on 7-7-72. He has further stated that prior to this report, he had met the applicant in the company of Hiralal PW8 in whose presence the applicant had admitted that he had withdrawn the amount of Rs. 816 and had also utilised the same for his personal use and gave an assurance that the amount would be repaid to him by the 10th of July and that he had executed the promissory note Ex.P/1 for an amount of Rs. 800 on 6-7-72. 816 and had also utilised the same for his personal use and gave an assurance that the amount would be repaid to him by the 10th of July and that he had executed the promissory note Ex.P/1 for an amount of Rs. 800 on 6-7-72. It is also interesting to note that before lodging the written complaint Ex.P/3, he had seen the cash register and verified the signature shown regarding the alleged payment made on 19-6-72 against his name but curiously enough, he has not said a word in that written report that the applicant had met him at the bus stand, had confessed having utilised the amount by misappropriating the same or thereafter having executed a promissory note in his favour. This conduct of the complainant appears to be quite peculiar and it is unlikely that he would have failed to make a mention of such important facts in the written complaint lodged by him. Even PW8 Hiralal, in whose presence the applicant is said to have made the confession and executed the promissory note, has admitted that he did not mention these facts when his statement was recorded by the police. He has further stated that out of the amount of Rs. 816 payable by the applicant to the complainant Balmukund, the applicant paid Rs. 16 in cash to the complainant and thereafter only he executed the promissory note for the balance amount of Rs. 800 and thereafter only he explained to the complainant that the execution of the promissory note, in these circumstances indicated that the amount has been withdrawn and misappropriated by the applicant. This witness has further admitted that in his presence Balmukund PW.1 saw the signature on Ex.P/2 and denied the same to be his own. However, though this was sent to the handwriting expert along with the specimen signatures of Balmukund, curiously enough the prosecution, for reasons best known to itself, has not examined the expert nor proved his report and an adverse inference on that account, therefore, must be drawn against the prosecution. 3. However, the prosecution evidence, is stated above, creates a doubt regarding the prosecution case and it is not safe to convict the applicant on such doubtful evidence. He is, therefore, entitled to the benefit of doubt. Revision allowed.