JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal arises against the order of acquittal dated February 19, 1979, passed by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ganganagar. 2. The prosecution case is that on April 30, 1974, the accused respondent was working in Ganganagar Sugar Mills in dual capacity, i.e. Sales Assistant as well as Godownkeeper. It is alleged that on April 30, 1974, 425 Quintal of sugar was released from the aforesaid mill under forged documents shown to have been released in the name of M/s Krays Vikraya Sahkari Samiti / Suratgarh Kraya Vikraya Sahkari Sanjni Bhadra. It is alleged that the accused respondent in the capacity of Sales Assistant had prepared bills Ex.P/4 and Ex. P/5 in the name of the aforesaid Cooperative Societies, and on the basis of the said bills the price of the sugar was deposited and than the sugar was released from the mill through Gate Pass Ex. P/7 and Ex.P/13. 3. The prosecution case is that the accused had prepared those bills as well as those Gate Passes and as such, he had wrongly taken delivery of the levy sugar to the tune of 425 quintals and the said sugar was not delivered to the concerned Co-operative Societies and it was sold in open market. 4. At the outset, it may be stated that there is no evidence on the record that the sugar was delivered to the accused respondent or that he had taken the delivery of the sugar. There is also no evidence that the accused-respondent had sold the sugar in the open market at a higher price. It may also be stated here that there is no cogent and reliable evidence on the record that the levy sugar vide Ex.P/4 and Ex.P/5 was not delivered to the concerned Co-operative Societies. In this connection reliance can be made to the statement of P.W. 10 Munshi Ram who was Depot Manager of Rajya Sahkari Vikraya Sangh Ltd. at Bhadra from 1973 to 1976. In the examination-in-chief itself this witness has stated that the Depot where he was working used to got allotment orders several times and sugar was also received by the Depot from time to time. He also admitted that the record in this connection was also being maintained at Bhadra where the Depot is situated. In the examination-in-chief itself this witness has stated that the Depot where he was working used to got allotment orders several times and sugar was also received by the Depot from time to time. He also admitted that the record in this connection was also being maintained at Bhadra where the Depot is situated. In the examination-in-chief this witness further stated that 500 bags of sugar were lifted on 26-4-74 from Ganganagar Sugar Mills for the month of April 1974. Than in cross-examination this witness further stated that he did not remember properly the quantity of sugar which was received in the month of April 1974. This witness has further stated that whenever allotment order for sugar was issued by the concerned authority a copy of the same was being sent to the Mill and he used to take the delivery of the sugar. He also admitted that on the basis of the allotment order received by the mill he used to take the delivery of the sugar from the mill and the bills used to be prepared on asking by him. 5. Similarly, P.W. 9 Bhajanlal was Vyavasthapak of Suratgarh Kraya Vikraha Sahkari Samiti. In the examination-in-chief, this witness has stated that he cannot say whether 300 bags of sugar for the month of January 1974 were lifted or not. He further stated that on 30-5-74, 400 bags of sugar was lifted from Ganganagar Sugar Mills. Then be also admits that 100 bags and 200 bags were lifted on 28th March 1974 and 29th March 1974. This witness further stated that he cannot say whether the aforesaid sugar was of January quota or not. He also stated that in the month of March 1974, 160 bags of sugar were also lifted in addition to 300 bags referred to above. He also admitted that the Stock Register is also maintained by the Cooperative Society and he used to maintain the same. He also admitted that the person who used to go to the mill for obtaining the delivery of the sugar was not being provided with any authority letter by the Society and on the basis of the allotment order received by the mill, the man of the Cooperative Society used to obtain the sugar after getting the bills prepared. Following this procedure, he had also lifted the sugar from the mill. 6. Following this procedure, he had also lifted the sugar from the mill. 6. Thus, as per the statement of this witness the sugar used to be obtained from the mill either by this witness or other employees of the Society even without obtaining any authority letter. 7. It is also pertinent to mention here that the concerned record of the Co-operative Society has not been produced in the court to show that the levy sugar was not received by the Society which is said to have been issued vide bills Ex.P 4 and Ex.P 5. 8. While discussing the evidence of the record, the learned trial Magistrate has observed that the accused-respondent only prepared the bills Ex. P 4 and Ex. P 5 on the basis of the allotment order. After preparation of the bills four higher Officers had checked the bill and put their signatures and after the signature of the administrator of the mill on the bill the Price of the sugar used to be got deposited and then release order of the sugar used to be issued. Thus, after the preparation of the bills by the accused-respondent, four officers of the mill, including the Administrator had checked the bills on the basis of the allotment order issued by the competent authority, then the price of the sugar was deposited. Besides the preparation of the bills, there is no evidence that the accused-respondent was connected in any other manner. There is no evidence that the accused had either deposited the amount or he had taken delivery of the sugar or he had sold the sugar in the open market at alleged by the prosecution. 9. The findings of the learned trial court, does not speak of any infirmity. I agree with the finding of the learned trial court that the prosecution has not proved that the sugar bags were obtained the accused-respondent or that he had sold the same in the open market. The finding of the learned trial court is neither perverse nor arbitrary, hence it does not warrant any interference. 10. The appeal is, therefore, hereby rejected.Appeal Rejected. *******