JUDGMENT 1. - S.B. Cr. Appeal No. 415/83 filed by the State & Cr. Rev. Petition No. 13/83 filed by the complainant, both arise out of judgment of the Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu in or appeal No. 10/82 while reversing the judgment dated 22.1.82 of the Chief Judl. Magistrate, Jhunjhunu in Cr. case No.72/77, & acquitting the respondent of the offence of Sections 419, & 420, IPC. 2. The allegation against the respondent (accused) is that he got encashed one draft to the tune of Rs. 4000/- (hearing No. 293/380' dated 14.4.75 of Chartered Bank Behrain) alleged to have been sent by the complainant (Abdul Sattar)s brother Ramjan through registered letter which is said to have been received by the respondent being namesake as of the complainant (Abdul Sattar), by receiving the postman and also got its payment with the aid of M/s Murlidhar Brijmohan. A complainant of which was lodged on 13.6.76 with the Superintendent of Police, CID C.B. Jaipur. A challan was submitted after due registration of criminal case for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 468, 467, IPC, before the trial Court which, after due trial found the respondent guilty under Section 419, 420, IPC & sentenced him to undergo one year's S.I & three years RI with a fine of Rs. 5000/- respectively. An appeal was filed by the respondent against his conviction & sentence and it was allowed vide judgment dated 23.10.82 and the respondent (accused) was acquitted of all the charges. 3. One of the grounds assigned by the lower court for acquittal of the respondent is that the F.I.R. was lodged after in-ordinate delay of several months which casts aspersion on the prosecution case and the genesis of its story has become open to suspicion, inasmuch as most material witness Yusuf Yasin has not Present been examined and he could have thrown light as he is said to have sent the envelop (Ex. D 1) containing the draft in question. Further the prosecution has failed to submit the acknowledgement receipt of the amount which might have been deposited at the time of sending the amount through draft from Behrain. From the material on record, the defence of the respondent (accused) that he had earlier advanced a loan to the tune of Rs. 4000/- to Yusuf Yasin while he had left for Behrain, is probabilised and his plea is not devoid of any force. 4. From the material on record, the defence of the respondent (accused) that he had earlier advanced a loan to the tune of Rs. 4000/- to Yusuf Yasin while he had left for Behrain, is probabilised and his plea is not devoid of any force. 4. On the question of extra judicial confession the lower court observed that it is a weak type of evidence and on account of incongruities & inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence on record, the prosecution witnesses as regards extra judicial confession are not trustworthy in addition to the reason that the witnesses on this question all are interested and relative. The prosecution has failed to produce the deposit receipt if at all he deposited the amount under the draft in question, on letters exchanged between him and the complainant were produced about the letters pertaining to the draft or is misappropriation. 5. The lower Court concluded that being name-sake & by chance, their parentage name being the same and residing in the Jhunjbunu-may be in slight different nearby locality, and moreover even on Ex. D. 1 the envelope, on particular Mohalla was stated, so if the postman had handed over the envelops containing the draft in question to Abdul Sattar (respondent) and when as per probabilised defence plea of Abdul Sattar (respondent) he had already advanced a sum of Rs. 4000/- to Yusuf Yasin (sender of the envelope in question Ex. D. 1), the respondent cannot be held to have any dishonest intention on his part at the time of obtaining the draft envelope and getting it encashed. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the ingredients necessary for the proof of offences with which the respondent was charged or convicted by the trial Court have not been proved by the prosecution and the grounds on which the first appellate court based its order acquitting the respondent of the offences punishable under Sections 419 & 420, IPC, are reasonable and plausible on the material on record and they cannot be entirely dislodged by disturbing the acquittal even after two views are arrived at after the lapse of about 16 years from the date of the alleged offence which has not been made out by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. 6. Consequently, I refrain myself from interfering with the acquittal. The State appeal as well as cr. 6. Consequently, I refrain myself from interfering with the acquittal. The State appeal as well as cr. revision petition filed by the complainant both are dismissed. The record be sent back. The respondent is on bail, and he need not surrender. Their bail bonds stand cancelled.State appeal and criminal revision filed by the complaint one dismissed. *******