JUDGMENT D. P. Sood, J —Order of acquittal recorded by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kandaghat, District Solan, in Cr. Case No. 134/2 of 83, on September 30, 1985, in favour of the respondent for the commission of an offence under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, is under challenge by the State of Himachal Pradesh through this appeal. 2. The prosecution case in nut-shell is that Himachal Pradesh Civil Supplies Corporation, had opened its retail shop at Chail on 10-11-1981 where the accused was posted as a salesman on 8-12-1981. Annual Physical Verification of various retail-shops including the aforesaid shop at Chail was fixed by the Managing Director, Himachal Pradesh Civil Supplies Corporation, Shimla, on March 1983. Shri V. K. Garg, PW 4, Accountant in the office of the Area Manager, H. P State Civil Supplies Corporation, Solan was deputed to conduct annual physical verification of this retail shop also. On conducting the physical verification of the shop under the charge of the respondent on March 30 and 31 of 1983, for the period of 1-4-1982 to 31-3-1983, he found heavy shortages of various commodities valuing at Rs. 41,100.05 which he detailed in his report Ex. PW 4/B. The accused was apprised of the above said shortages towards the liquidation of which he deposited an amount of Rs 10,227.30 p. on different occasions during the period April 1982 to July 1983. The balance of Rs. 30,872IS P. remained unpaid and as such the Area Manager, Solan, lodged the instant complaint of mis-appropriation to the District Superintendent of Police, Solan, on 19-7-1983, for registration of a criminal case against the respondent. 3. To the charge under section 409, L P. C. the accused-respondent pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In his statement under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code he admitted his appointment as salesman vide letter Ex. PW I/A dated 8-12-1981. Be also admitted that PW 4 Shri V. K. Garg did inspect the retail shop and conducted annual audit and prepared inspection report Ex. FW 4/A but he categorically denied that any physical verification of various commodities lying in the shop was ever carried out by said witness. He further admitted that he deposited an amount of Rs. 10,227.30 but he showed his ignorance about the shortages allegedly found in the retail shop. Apart from it, regarding two letters Ex. PW 1/C and Ex. FW 4/A but he categorically denied that any physical verification of various commodities lying in the shop was ever carried out by said witness. He further admitted that he deposited an amount of Rs. 10,227.30 but he showed his ignorance about the shortages allegedly found in the retail shop. Apart from it, regarding two letters Ex. PW 1/C and Ex. PW S/D respectively acknowledging his liabilities pursuant to the shortages referred to above, he contended that the same were written by him under pressure from the higher authorities. Further regarding the duties specified in Memo. Ex PW 1/B and also qua his responsibility to maintain the record of the retail shop, he stated that he did not receive any duty-chart from the Managing Director concerned at any time. In fact, according to him there was no shortage in the retail-shop However, his higher authorities pressurised him to make good the deficiency of various commodities found during the inspection and consequently to deposit the money thereof. 4. The court below acquitted the respondent by holding that delay in lodging the R I R. proved to be fatal to the prosecution case and secondly though entrustment of various commodities to the respondent covering the period from 1-4-1982 to 31-3-1983 stood established by the prosecution but mens rea to mis-appropriate the same was all together missing in the instant case. 5. The learned Assistant Advocate General has vehemently urged that status of the respondent is of a public servant stands un-controverted ; that the learned Court below has found that entrustment of goods to the respondent covering the period from 1-4-1982 to 31-3-1983 had been established from the evidence adduced by the prosecution. Thus in a case of this nature where entrustment is proved or admitted, it was incumbent upon the respondent to account for the goods or its money value entrusted with him irrespective of the fact that the prosecution may not be in a position to establish as to how exactly the respondent has mis-appropriated the goods or its money value and converted the same to his own use, he being the Incharge of the retail shop, referred to above. Further it is pointed out that the deposit of a portion of money value of the embezzled goods to the tune of Rs. Further it is pointed out that the deposit of a portion of money value of the embezzled goods to the tune of Rs. 10,22730 pursuant to the acknowledgement of his liability to make good the deficiency of the aforesaid goods vide his two letters Exs. PW 1/C and PW 1/D coupled with the actual deficiency found by PW 4 on physical verification, proves the offence in question. The learned Court below has taken a whimsical view in recording the order of acquittal which is liable to be reversed. 6. We have perused the oral evidence and the large volume of documentary evidence on which reliance has been placed by both the sides. It would not be necessary for us to catalogue the different items mentioned in the documents on which such evidence has been based as in our view most of the facts and documents have not been challenged by ths respondent whose case is one of bonafide belief. 7. On a careful perusal of the record, it appears that PWs 1, 3, 4 and 5 are the star witnesses of the prosecution. Respondent Ritu Raj earlier to his appointment as salesman in the retail shop aforesaid on 8-12-1981, was working in the office of the Area Civil Supplies on daily wages as admitted by PW 4 in his cross-examination. Prior to his appointment Shri Ram Rattan was the salesman therein and some recoveries were shown against him which remained outstanding during the tenure of PW 4 in the aforesaid department. According to him, the goods indicated in Annexures P-l to P-20 were received by the respondent under his signature in the aforesaid retail shop and on physical verification, annual statement Ex. PW 4/B which shows the total goods supplied, consumed goods and balance goods in the retail shop, was prepared He further states that responsibility to account for all the commodities so supplied, sold and balance thereof in the shop remained with the respondent. In his cross-examination, he admitted that before 31-3-1983 he also conducted the verification on 30-9-1982 and at that time he found shortages ; that the shortages of goods was shown in previous report also but he was not aware of the fact as to who had conducted the verification. He stated these facts on the basis of that he had made a statement earlier also. 8. He stated these facts on the basis of that he had made a statement earlier also. 8. PWs 1 and 5 depose that there was a helper with the respondent. The latter also admitted in his cross-examination that during the leave period of respondent the retail shop used to remain open and business used to be carried on in routine of which daily sale summary used to be received in their office. Further he (PW 5) has admitted that respondent used to deposit the entire amount in full. The documentary evidence consisting of P-l to P-20 and also physical verification reports Ex. PW 4/A and PW 4/B respectively simply show the balance on 1-4-1982 and the shortages which were ultimately found to exist in the balance goods as on 31-3-1983. It is to be noted that the consumable goods used to be entrusted to the respondent on different dates in routine for the purposes of its sale. It Is in the light of the above said admitted facts and circumstances that the impugned judgment is to be viewed whether it is the result of mis-appraisal of the evidence led by the prosecution and mis-application of law? In other words, it has to be ascertained than as to whether the respondent can be indicated for the offence in question. 9. Io order to bring home the charge of criminal breach of trust by a public servant, there have to be an entrustment, thereafter mis-appropriation or conversion to ones own use or use in violation of any legal direction or of any legal contract and finally the mis-appropriation or coversion or disposal must be with a dishonest intention. In order to be dishonest the property must be mis-appropriated or converted with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another, that is, with the intention to cause gain by unlawful means of property to which the person gaining it is not legally entitled or the loss by unlawful means of property to which the person losing it is legally entitled. As such every offence of criminal breach of trust though it involves a civil wrong in respect of which the complainant may seek his redress for damages in a civil court yet, every breach of trust in the absence of mens rea or criminal intention cannot legally justify a criminal prosecution. As such every offence of criminal breach of trust though it involves a civil wrong in respect of which the complainant may seek his redress for damages in a civil court yet, every breach of trust in the absence of mens rea or criminal intention cannot legally justify a criminal prosecution. In short, intention is the gist of the offence. 10. On a careful perusal of the record consisting of oral as also documentary evidence even if we presume the sequence of events in respect of supply of goods to the respondent on. various dates according to the entries detailed in P-l to P-20 and also as entered in Ex. PW 4/A, we are unable to conclude that factually the aforesaid goods were entrusted to the respondent in view of the admission of PW 4 that earlier too, shortages were found twice. There is no evidence on record to show as to what goods, in fact, were entrusted to the respondent on 8-12-1981 that is on his appointment, which were lying in the retail-shop Further no evidence has been produced by the prosecution to show at which point of time shortages earlier to 30-9-1982 were found and to what extent, as deposed by PW 4. Why the earlier to reports regarding the shortages so found had been withheld by the prosecution, has not been explained Who was responsible for the said shortages as according to the admission of PW 4 even some recoveries were shown against Ram Rattan, the earlier salesman and they remained outstanding against him till PW 4 V K Garg who conducted the annual physical verification of the shop under the charge of the respondent. Adverse inference under section 114 (g) of the Indian Evidence Act to the effect that had this record been produced, it would have gone against the prosecution, can be drawn which entitles the extending of a benefit of doubt to the respondent Even otherwise there is no evidence on record to show as to how on what basis and under what policies the admissible shortages in stock sold as per prescribed norms were being provided to the incharge of the retail shops including the respondent. Even otherwise the prosecution evidence shows that during the leave period of the respondent the business was being carried on by his helper. Even otherwise the prosecution evidence shows that during the leave period of the respondent the business was being carried on by his helper. As per the admission of PW 5, daily sales amount used to be deposited in full and daily sales summary also used to be received in the office. In other words, it is not the case of the prosecution that there was hanky-panky in the routine business. The only case is that goods were found deficient on its physical verification of which liability is that of the accused He may have been grossly negligent in not being vigilant over the receipt and sale of the goods referred to above during the aforesaid period. At this stage it may be pointed out that there is no allegation against the accused that he forged any document pertaining to the retail shop nor any prosecution witness including PW 4 alleged that the accused dishonestly mis-appropriated the amount of sale proceeds of the commodities Two letters Ex PW 1/C and Ex. PW 1/D show that the accused has come forward with the plea which relates to settlement of accounts and consequent to which he deposited a portion of the money value of the goods found deficient. Even PW 4 in his cross-examination has stated that he did not state to the police that respondent mis-appropriated the goods/its amount. Thus taking into consideration the entire facts emerging from the evidence, it cannot be said that the respondent had the mens tea to mis-appropriate the goods in question during the period commencing from 1-4-1982 to 31-3-1981 at any time. The learned Court below was absolutely right in holding that mens rea which is sine-qua-non of the criminal breach of trust is all together missing in the instant case. 11. The aforesaid facts revealed from the prosecution evidence further show that the factum of shortages of consumable article lying in the retail shop in question had come to the knowledge of PWs 1 to 5 even prior to 30-9-1982. Why they did not lodge the report immediately against the respondent also remains a mystery. There is thus un-explained delay of more than one year. Why they did not lodge the report immediately against the respondent also remains a mystery. There is thus un-explained delay of more than one year. It is well established that "the first information report in respect of a cognizable offence should be lodged as soon as possible Where the lodging of the report is delayed., it not only gets bereft of its spontaneity, danger also creeps in of the introduction, of coloured versions, thought out stories and twists of actual facts Thus, some innocent person can be roped in and named as culprit as a result of much thought, consultation and discussion. To avoid these dangers, the Courts have also insisted upon the prompt lodging of the report to the police/ This principle fully applies to the facts and circumstances of the instant case and in that view of the matter, the learned Court below was absolutely right in holding that belated report was fatal to the prosecution case. 12. From whatsoever angle we view the facts of the instant case, we do not find any Infirmity in the impugned judgment which calls for interference at our hands. In view of the matter the appeal is dismissed in terms of the above. Appeal dismissed.