Judgment : ARUNACHALAM, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER is A-1, in C. C. No. 223 of i989, pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate. Udhagamandalam. The Petitioner is alleged to have committed offences punishable under section 120-B and section 409 Indian Penal Code alongwith four others arrayed as A-2 to A- 5. At the relevant time when the offence was allegedly committed, the petitioner was Assistant Engineer attached to Tamil. Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, Udhagamandalam. The Subdivision, under the control of the petitioner had-two stores, for stocking materials like pipes, rods, etc. One of the stores for stocking material was situated 6 kms. away from the main office, where petitioner was working. A-2 to A-5 were then the watchmen in charge of the said stores. One of them would do night watching, while the others would be engaged in the day shift. The petitioner took charge of the store from his predecessor Chandrasekaran, cited as P. W. 1 in the charge sheet, on 21/4/1988. On 9/2/1989, A-2 complained in writing, to the petitioner, that when he checked the store articles, he found seven items missing. It is stated, in h is letter to the petitioner, as follows: (Matter in other language) The Petitioner, after informing the Assistant Executive Engineer, shown as P. W. 2 in the charge sheet and on his direction, checked the stores over again and prepared an inventory. He found, that actually 16 items were missing and not merely seven as reported by A-2. Thereafter alongwith the Assistant Executive Engineer, shown as P. W. 2 in the charge-sheet, the petitioner complained to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Town West Circle, Ooty assessing the value of the missing articles, as Rs. 60,000/ -. He had prayed for investigation and tracing of missing articles. Thereafter the Petitioner sent a written report about the missing of 16 items of materials from the stores, on 8/3/1989, to the Assistant Executive Engineer (P. W. 2 in the charge-sheet) and another report on 13/3/1989 to the Executive Engineer (P. W. 3 in the charge sheet ). In his turn the Assistant Executive Engineer sent a report directly to the Executive Engineer stating, that unless some responsibility was fixed for the missing of the store items, the police will not be able to take any further action. In his turn the Assistant Executive Engineer sent a report directly to the Executive Engineer stating, that unless some responsibility was fixed for the missing of the store items, the police will not be able to take any further action. Thereafter obviously, on the advice of the Higher Officers, the petitioner preferred a fresh complaint, on 29/3/1989, at the same police station, referring to his earlier complaint alleging, that since the watchmen were posted round the clock for 24 hours, there was no possibility for the missing of materials without their knowledge. He has further stated, that even after enquiry of the watchmen, he was unable to fix the exact date of missing of material from the store room. The complaint of the petitioner was registered as Crime No. 102 of 1989 and after completion of investigation, the petitioner was also shown as one of the accused in the crime, alongwith the four watchmen. ( 2 ) IN this petition preferred under section 482 Cr. P. C. to call for the records and quash the pending prosecution as not maintainable and an abuse of process of court, in so far as it relates in the Petitioner, Mr. M. Karpagavinayagam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, contended that the petitioner had done everything within his power to bring to the notice of the higher authorities and the police, about the missing of certain items from the store room and that though the petitioner had taken charge from his predecessor of the store-room and hence gets entrusted with the property, unless there was material to show, in the record forwarded to court under section 173 Cr. P. C. that there was dishonest conversion or misappropriation of the property entrusted, the pending prosecution cannot be allowed to survive, in so far as the petitioner was concerned. There was practically no material to show any conspiracy between the petitioner and the other accused. All that the Assistant Executive Engineer (P. W. 2 in the charge sheet) has stated is, that there was a delay in preferring of a report by the petitioner. ( 3 ) ON this contention, I have heard Mr. Shanmughavelayudham, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. He submitted that once the petitioner had taken charge of the store-room from his predecessor, he was bound to account for the articles, since entrustment gets established. ( 3 ) ON this contention, I have heard Mr. Shanmughavelayudham, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. He submitted that once the petitioner had taken charge of the store-room from his predecessor, he was bound to account for the articles, since entrustment gets established. He pointed out, the statement recorded during investigation of Sridharan, another Executive Engineer, who has stated about improper maintenance of the stock register on 23/6/1987. He submitted, that apart from the particulars pointed out by the petitioners counsel, there was no other material available in the case record. ( 4 ) I have considered the rival contentions placed before me. The prosecution does not dispute that the petitioner was recruited and appointed as an Assistant Engineer from 1988, and he joined duty at the Tamil Nadu Water and Drainage Board on 26/4/1988. If that be so, if there was improper maintenance of stock register on 23/6/1987, obviously the petitioner cannot be made liable. Technically, the petitioner, having taken charge of the store room from his predecessor Chandrasekaran (P. W. 1 in the charge sheet), is deemed to have been entrusted with all the materials found in the store-room, checked and received by him. Petitioner docs not deny that he had taken possession of the store room from his predecessor. This admission will necessarily prove one of the ingredients of the offence, namely entrustment. The facts narrated above clearly show, that the petitioner became aware of the missing of a few articles through A-2, on 9/2/1989. He had promptly taken steps to take an inventory, and to his dismay found, that not merely seven articles but in effect 16 articles were missing from the store-room. He had informed his Superior Officer, the Assistant Executive Engineer (P. W. 2 in the charge sheet) and alongwith him had preferred a complaint at the concerned Police station on 4/3/1989. Not stopping with that, the petitioner had also sent reports to the Assistant Executive Engineer as well as the Executive Engineer. Since it was felt, that liability for the missing of articles, should be fixed, necessary the watchmen, who were in physical possession of the store-room, were shown as suspects in the complaint preferred on 9/3/1989. Not stopping with that, the petitioner had also sent reports to the Assistant Executive Engineer as well as the Executive Engineer. Since it was felt, that liability for the missing of articles, should be fixed, necessary the watchmen, who were in physical possession of the store-room, were shown as suspects in the complaint preferred on 9/3/1989. When there is no material whatever, to show, even remotely, that there was a conspiracy or meeting of minds between the petitioner and the other accused, even inferentially it is not possible to hold at this stage that the petitioner was party to any conspiracy, to commit criminal breach of trust. On coming to know about the missing of articles valued at Rs. 60,000/-, he had informed his superior officers and preferred a complaint as well. To prosecute the petitioner for the offence alleged, mere entrustment alone will not be sufficient, but the records forwarded to court must also show, that there was dishonest misappropriation or conversion of the property entrusted to him. I have already stated that there is no material whatever to substantiate the charge of conspiracy and equally there is total absence of material to prove the second ingredient of the offence, namely dishonest conversion or misappropriation of the property entrusted. As rightly stated, by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor except that the petitioner had taken charge of the store room, no other material is available in the record forwarded to court to indicate the complicity of the petitioner in the offence alleged. ( 5 ) I am satisfied, that as acceded to by the prosecution, obviously, there is no material whatsoever available against the petitioner to allow him to face trial. In that view all further proceedings in C. C. No. 223 of 1989 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Udhagamangalam shall stand quashed, in so far as the petitioner alone is concerned. Petition allowed.