JUDGMENT - V.H. BHAIRAVIA, J. :---This revision application is preferred by the petitioner-accused against the order dated 20-9-1988, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kagal, convicting the petitioner-accused for the offence punishable under section 408 of I.P.C. and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for 2 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer further R.I. for 1 month. The said order was challenged in appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 200 of 1988 in the Court of learned Third Addl. Sessions Judge, Kolhapur and the said appeal also came to be dismissed by the order dated 14-11-1990 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kolhapur. Hence this revision application. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that, the petitioner-accused was serving as Head Secretary of Kalbadevi Vikas Seva Sanstha Ltd. during the period 1-7-1975 and 31-7-75 i.e. one month. It is alleged that in the Audit Report dated 28-5-1977, it was found that a sum of Rs. 6,759.65 ps. was shown in the name of Rice Mill Division by the present petitioner-accused No. 1. Thereafter, in the month of September, 1978, a complaint was filed. The investigation was carried out and the charge-sheet was filed firstly on 21-8-1981 for misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 11,652.41 ps. under section 408 I.P.C. and the application (Exh. 46) was filed by the A.P.P. for amendment of charge and to add one more accused as accused No. 2. That application came to be rejected (Exh. 46) on 22-12-1987 and the charge was dropped. Thereafter, it reveals that on 1-2-1988, second time charge was framed against accused Nos. 1 and 2 for misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 6,759.65 ps. Thus, it reveals that the alleged misappropriation during the period between 1-7-1975 and 31-7-1975 alleged to have been reported in the Audit memo of 28-5-1977 and the complaint was lodged against two accused i.e. the present petitioner and the Manager of Kalbadevi Vikas Seva Sanstha Ltd., i.e. accused No. 2. However, accused No. 2 has been acquitted by the trial Court and the petitioner-accused No. 1 came to be convicted and sentenced. 3. Heard the learned Counsel Ms. Dandekar for the petitioner. However, accused No. 2 has been acquitted by the trial Court and the petitioner-accused No. 1 came to be convicted and sentenced. 3. Heard the learned Counsel Ms. Dandekar for the petitioner. It has been submitted that the petitioner was holding the charge of Head Secretary of Kalbadevi Vikas Seva Sanstha Ltd. of two sections, only for one month i.e. between 1-7-1975 and 31-7-1975 and thereafter, accused No. 2 has taken the charge of Rice Mill Section. It has been submitted that no misappropriation has been held to be proved by the prosecution, as alleged in the charge-sheet. The charge itself was defective, vague and has no basis for framing the same. The learned Counsel has also contended that there is a considerable delay in lodging the complaint. Further, it has been contended that there is a considerable gap between lodging the complaint and filing the charge-sheet in the Court. It has been submitted that there is further delay of about 7 years and during that period, three times charge-sheet has been framed. The learned Counsel submitted that without going into the merits of this case, and the latches in delay, the petitioner-accused has been highly prejudiced, jeopardised his defence and it has vitiated the prosecution itself. On merits, the learned Counsel has submitted that there is no such misappropriation. The alleged shortage of amount was already paid before the audit objection raised and there is no charge of temporary misappropriation. Therefore, the charge is not proved and the petitioner is entitled for acquittal. 4. Having gone through the record and proceeding of this case, I find much substance in the submission of the learned Counsel that both the courts below have lost sight of the fact of disclosure of the offence in the complaint. It is an admitted fact that the alleged misappropriation of sum of Rs. 6,759.65 ps. has been deposited by the accused persons before the audit is completed. It reveals from Exhibit-1 that there is no charge of temporary misappropriation. The period of alleged misappropriation shown in the Audit Report is 1-7-75 and 31-7-75 i.e. one month. The charge was taken over by the accused No. 2 on 1-8-75 from the accused No. 1 i.e. the petitioner. It reveals from Exhibit-1 that there is no charge of temporary misappropriation. The period of alleged misappropriation shown in the Audit Report is 1-7-75 and 31-7-75 i.e. one month. The charge was taken over by the accused No. 2 on 1-8-75 from the accused No. 1 i.e. the petitioner. It is pertinent to note here that accused No. 2 has been a Manager and he was acquitted by the Court, and the entire responsibility of debit entry shifted on accused No. 1 petitioner. In my opinion, this is an erroneous finding of the trial Court. In view of the admitted fact of depositing the amount in the account by the accused persons before the audit was completed and there is no charge of temporary misappropriation, no conviction would be recorded. Further, it reveals from the record that there is a considerable delay of about 7 years in framing the charge and that too, the charge found to be vague and without material on record in support of framing the charge. Therefore, the charge is misconceived and was unsustainable. In the result, this application is allowed. The order dated 20-9-1988 passed by the trial Court and the order dated 14-11-90 passed by the appellate Court are both quashed and set aside and the petitioner is acquitted, for the offence with which he has been charged. His bail bond shall stand cancelled. Rule made absolute. Revision allowed.