JUDGMENT Surya Prasad, J. - This is an appeal on behalf of State of Uttar Pradesh against the judgment and order dated 14-11-1979 passed by Sri Pratap Singh, the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pauri Garhwal in criminal case No. 691 of 1977 acquitting the accused Mahendra Pal. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated is that the accused had been posted as Assistant Potato development Inspector at Thalisen district Pauri Garhwal since 26th November, 1969 to September 1972. He had received on 3-8-1971 and 9-3-1972 potato worth Rs. 5992.88 paise in the aforesaid capacity for distribution to the cultivators. But he did not submit the account in respect of the said potato, nor did he deposit the value thereof in the department concerned. Consequently he is alleged to have intentionally misappropriated the said potato or committed the embezzlement in respect of the amount thereof. This being so, a written report was made by Sri B.L. Tyagi, the then Potato Development officer, Pauri Garhwal for registration of a case against the accused Mahendra Pal. On that basis a chik report was prepared and a case was registered against him. The case was investigated into and after the completion of the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against him. 3. The prosecution examined seven witnesses named Banshidhar Yadav (P. W. 1), Narendra Kumar (P.W. 2), Purmanand Uniyal (P.W. 3), B. L. Tyagi (P.W. 4), Chandan Singh (P.W. 5), Rajendra Prasad (P.W. 6) and Asha Ram (P.W. 7) and relied upon certain documents in support of its case. 4. The accused pleaded not guilty. He has stated that he had submitted the amount for the potato entrusted to him and that he had not at all misapporiated the same. He has further stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case on account of enmity. 5. The accused Mahendra Pal has examined Narendra Kumar Gupta (D. W. 1; and has relied upon certain documents in support of his contentions. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having considered the evidence on record the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pauri Garhwal acquitted the accused of the charge levelled against him under Section 409, I.P.C. vide his impugned judgment and order referred to above. 7. The State felt aggrieved of his judgment and order and, therefore, preferred this appeal against the same. 8. 7. The State felt aggrieved of his judgment and order and, therefore, preferred this appeal against the same. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record 9. The accused Mahendra Pal was posted as Assistant Potato Development Inspector in the Block Developmebt, Thalisen district Pauri Garhwal. He was entrusted with potato valuing Rs. 5992.88 paise for distribution among the cultivators. These facts are not in dispute between the parties. 10. Banshidhar (P. W. 1) has stated in his examination-in-chief that the accused should under the Departmental rules, have deposited the value of the potato in the Government Treasury, but he failed to do so. B.L. Tyagi (P.W. 4) has stated that the accused should according to Rules have sold the potato, issued cash receipts therefor, and deposited the cash received by him in the Treasury, but he did not do so. 11. It may be mentioned in this connection that the prosecution has not been able to show any rule under which the accused should have realised the cost of the potato distributed by him among the cultivators. On the other hand, the learned Assistants Government Advocate has expressed that there is no rule as such. Therefore it was not the duty of the accused to realise the cost/price of the potato and deposit toe ,arise in the Government Treasury. 12. There is no evidence on record to show that the accused had not distributed the potato among the cultivators or that he had actually misappropriated the same. To the contrary, the accused had given certain bonds to Purnanand (P. W. 3). The accused had obtained these bonds from the cultivators in lieu of the potato given to them. In view of all this, the question of misappropriating the potato by the accused does not arise. There is no evidence on record to prove the charge framed against him, the prosecution case is wholly misconceived. The accused appears to have been falsely and baselessly implicated in the case on account of displeasure of his superiors. 13. In the result, the appeal fails. The impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate are confirmed. The accused is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties stand discharged. Government Appeal dismissed.