PATIL, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgement and order of acquittal dated 26. 3. 1983 passed by the Civil Judge and principal J. M. F. C. , Madhugiri, in C. C. No. 785 of 1977, whereby he has acquitted the respondent-accused of the charge of the offence punishable under S. 409 IPC. ( 2 ) IN sum and substance, the prosecution version of the case as tried to be made out at the trial is: the respondent-accused being a Village Accountant of Agrahara village in koratagere taluk, during the years 1970-71 and 1971-72 had collected a sum of rs. 33. 08 ps and Rs. 33-10 ps. , on 21. 4. 1972 and 1. 6. 1972 respectively from PW-2 K. R. Shamanna, being the land revenue in respect of S. Nos. 49 and 50 of baleveeranahally village, but had not remitted the same and had thereby committed an offence of criminal breach of trust punishable under Sec. 409 IPC. ( 3 ) THE accused pleaded not guilty to the charge of the offence levelled against him. Although he admitted that he had collected those sums of money under various receipts marked as Exs. P-5 to P-8 and P-9 to p. 12, but contended that he had remitted the amount and, therefore, he was not guilty of the charge of the offence levelled against him, ( 4 ) EIGHT persons, including the Tahsildar pw-7, were examined as witnesses at the trial. The Investigating Officer was, however, not examined. The learned Magistrate, appreciating the evidence held that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused had not remitted the amount collected by him and he further observed that the non-examination of the I. O. , in the case was fatal to the prosecution case. In that view, he having acquitted the accused, the State has filed this appeal. ( 5 ) WE have heard the learned State Public prosector appearing for the appellant and also gone through the evidence of the material witnesses read out before us and we are of the opinion that not only the non-examination of the I. O. in the case. who is an important witness, is tatal to the prosecution case, as observed by the magistrate, but also as we have in the evidence, the amounts collected and remitted are accounted in the Khird Register. who is an important witness, is tatal to the prosecution case, as observed by the magistrate, but also as we have in the evidence, the amounts collected and remitted are accounted in the Khird Register. Neither the Khird Register maintained in this behalf has been produced at the trial nor any extract from the Khird has been produced. In a case like this where the charge of criminal breach of trust is levelled against the accused and it is contended by him that he has paid or remitted the amount, it is not sufficient merely to prove the entrustment of the amount, but the prosecution must also prove by reliable and acceptable evidence that the amounts so entrusted which ought to have been remitted or paid into the accounts of the Government have not been so paid or credited and it, is only when so proved, a presumption of misappropriation or criminal breach of trust can be raised against the accused if the amounts collected and payments made are recorded in the Khird Register, it is not explained as to why the Khird book so maintained, which would have thrown more light on the prosecution case, has been withheld and not produced. This is also fatal to the prosecution. Therefore, we do not consider it a fit case to interfere with the order of acquittal. In the result and for the reasons stated above, the appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. --- *** --- .