JUDGMENT V. P. Bhatnagar, J. —Accused Chiranji Lal was charge sheeted for having committed criminal breach of trust in respect of an amount of Rs. 10,275.26 p. during the period in-between 21-64978 and 28-4-1979 and thus punishable under section 408 of the Indian Penal Code. He was acquitted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kinnaur at Kalpa, vide his judgment dated November 23, 1981 aggrieved from which the State has filed the present appeal. 2. It has not been disputed before us that Chiranji Lal was working as an employee of Kinnaur District Co-operative Marketing Consumer Federation Ltd., Tapri, during the relevant period and further that he was Incharge of the Stores in his above said capacity. 3. Briefly stated the prosecution case against him was that he had sold goods worth Rs 3,855-28 p. and Rs. 4,869-12 p. vide Cash Memos marked P-l and P-2 respectively but had failed to deposit the aforesaid sale proceeds. In addition, goods worth Rs. 1,550-86 p. were found to be short during the physical verification of the stock conducted by Shri Dalip Singh (PW 2) and Jiwan Lai from 21-4-1979 to 28-4-1979. The learned trial Magistrate, while acquitting the accused, held that it was a case involving civil liability and that no offence under section 408 of the Indian Penal Code was made out. As regards the shortage of goods worth Rs. 1,550-86 p. there is not much to be said on behalf of the prosecution since the entire evidence placed before the Court is that goods to that extent were not there in the stock when physical verification was done. Now such shortage can be due to several reasons and it would not be correct to say that every time goods are found to be short a case of criminal breach of trust would stand made out. It is well settled that the prosecution has to go a step further and establish that the accused had dishonest intention and that he mis-appropriated those goods. It is a matter of common knowledge that shortages do take place in Stores every now and then without giving rise to any criminal liability. 4. This brings us to the prosecution case with respect to the remaining two amounts of Rs. 3,855-28 p. and Rs. It is a matter of common knowledge that shortages do take place in Stores every now and then without giving rise to any criminal liability. 4. This brings us to the prosecution case with respect to the remaining two amounts of Rs. 3,855-28 p. and Rs. 4,869-12 p. In support of these two amounts, books containing the relevant Cash Memos have been produced by Shri Dharam Das (PW 1) who was handed over the charge by Chiranji Lal and perhaps that is the reason why these Cash Memo Books were marked and not exhibited. In fact we have perused the entire record but find that no evidence has been adduced to prove that these Cash Memos were issued by the accused. Similarly, Stock Registers marked P*3 and P«4, have also been produced by the same witness but not duly proved while adducing evidence, In fact there is no evidence worth the name that the cash proceeds against the Cash Memos in question were not duly accounted for by their non-deposit. In his statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the defence taken up by the accused is that he had duly deposited the cash proceeds but proper receipts were not issued to him. It was, therefore, incumbent upon the prosecution to adduce positive evidence by showing absence of the relevant entries in the Cash Book corresponding to these Cash Memos. This, in our opinion, is a serious lacuna in- the prosecution evidence which compels us to return a finding that the prosecution case has not been proved with respect to these two items as well. As observed earlier, the shortage in cash and goods was there and was actually admitted by the accused but the criminal offence under section 408 of the Indian Penal Code, for the reasons already given, has not been proved. 5. Before parting with this case, we may mention the filing of Cr. M. P. (M) No. 669 of 1990 whereby an effort has been made on behalf of the accused to place on record the fact that the accused has since paid back the amount alleged to have been embezzled. The prayer made in the application is that the offence may be compounded with the permission of the Court keeping in view the above circumstances. The prayer made in the application is that the offence may be compounded with the permission of the Court keeping in view the above circumstances. It has been, however, conceded by the learned Counsel for the respondent (Chiranji Lal) that the offence with which the accused stands charged cannot be compounded even with the permission of the Court under the provisions of section 3-0 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This would, however, not make any material effect as far as the result of this appeal is concerned since we have already held that the prosecution has failed to bring the guilt home to the accused. Consequently the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.