Judgment Loknath Prasad, J. 1. Criminal Revision Nos. 69/91-R and 127/92-R were taken up together for convenience as both these revisions were preferred in respect of two different orders passed by the Court below in respect of G. R. Case No. 67/86. 2. In Criminal Revision No. 69/91, Flying Officer A. K. Das presently Secretary, Zila Sainik Board, Singhbhum at Chaibassa is the petitioner and this revision had been preferred against the judgment dated 26th March, 1991 by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge of Singhbhum at Chaibassa through which the conviction of the petitioner under Section 420, IPC is awarded in G. R. Case No. 67/86-R was confirmed and maintained whereas Criminal Revision No. 127/92-R had been preferred by Dobro Sundi, the informant of G. R. Case No. 67/86 as against the order passed in Criminal Appeal No. 144 of 1986 passpd by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Chaibassa Sri Mohammad Mahfooz Alara through which the appellant Sri Shankar Dhar was acquitted and his conviction as recorded in G. R. Case No. 67/86 by the learned Judicial Magistrate was set aside. This common order will dispose of these two revisions. 3. The fact in short giving rise to these revision is that the informant Dobro Sundi who is also a retired Military officer and claims himself to be the President of Awakash Prapta Sainik Samitee, Chaibassa lodged an FIR as against the Secretary Sainik Board S. K. Das and the head clerk of the Board Sri Shankar Dhar alleging there that the informant as a President of the Socieiy received several complaints that S. K. Das and S. Dhar had cheated the retired military personnel by inducing them to give Rs. 100 to Rs. 125 per head for forming a Co-operative Society and for opening a Canteen for the retired Military personnel and for that, no receipts were granted and further neither the canteen was opened nor the Co-operative Society for the welfare of the retired Military personnel were formed and the entire money amounting to Rs. 62,500 collected from various persons was misappropriated and this amount was deposited by Sri Dhar in his own personal name in Bank of India, Chaibassa branch bearing account No. 6641. 4. 62,500 collected from various persons was misappropriated and this amount was deposited by Sri Dhar in his own personal name in Bank of India, Chaibassa branch bearing account No. 6641. 4. The police on the basis of the written report instituted a case as against both the petitioners i. e. the Secretary and the Head Clerk of the Sainik Board and after completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet under Section 420/34, IPC. 5. Earlier G. R. Case No. 67/86 was tried by Sri K. Prasad Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chaibassa, who vide his judgment dated 21-8-1989 found both the petitioners guilty under Section 420/34, IPC and they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to further pay a fine of Rs. 500 in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a month. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of conviction, two separate appeals were preferred. The Secretary of the Board, S. K. Das, preferred Criminal Appeal No. 143/89 which was decided by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Jiwan Tigma vide his judgment dated 26th March, 1991 He dismissed the criminal appeal and the sentence as awarded by the trial court as against this petitioner was duly confirmed. Against that, Criminal Revision No. 67/91-R had been preferred. 6. So far other petitioner Sri Shankar Dhar is concerned, he preferred Criminal Appeal No. 144/89 which was heard by another Additional Sessions Judge, that is, 1st Additional Sessions Judge Chaibassa, Mohd. Mahfooz Alam who vide his judgment dated 5-9-1992 set aside the conviction of this petitioner and acquitted him of the charges levelled against him and against that order revision bearing No. 127/92(R) had been preferred by the informant alleging therein that the court below without properly considering the evidence on the record, recorded an order of acquittal. 7. Now the question for consideration is if these two petitioners as Secretary and Head Clerk of a Sainik Board of Chaibassa indused some of the retired presonnel and received money ranging from Rs. 100 to Rs. 125 each after giving an assurance that a canteen and a Co-operative Society will be opened and thus misappropriated the amount and if this allegation will be proved, then certainly the revision preferred by the informant, that is, Revision No. 127/92(R) will be allowed and other revision preferred against the ordei of conviction is liable to be dismissed. 8. 125 each after giving an assurance that a canteen and a Co-operative Society will be opened and thus misappropriated the amount and if this allegation will be proved, then certainly the revision preferred by the informant, that is, Revision No. 127/92(R) will be allowed and other revision preferred against the ordei of conviction is liable to be dismissed. 8. The criminal case was instituted on the written report of PW 1 Dobra Sundi that both the petitioners as Secretary and Head Clerk of the Sainik Board during the year 1982-83 collected money Rs. 100 to Rs. 125 per head from various retired Military personnel after giving an inducement and assurance that a canteen and Co-operative Society will be opened for their welfare. The informant has figured as PW 1, but from his evidence, it can be said that actually he simply learnt about the collection of money by the petitioner and then he made an enquiry and submitted a written report to the police. Moreover, he also admitted that he is the President of a Society which is unregistered and he also submitted a list of the persons from money was collected Rs. 125 or Rs. 100 each, that is Ext. 10. It is also his evidence that petitioners had neither opened a canteen nor a Co-operative Society and had not granted any receipt about the collection of money and they misappropriated the amount. So the evidence of this witness is not very material because this witness himself neither paid any money nor he was present at the time of payment and simply he heard about the same from others. 9. PW 2 is Manai Gagrai ; PW 3 is Pradhan Deogam ; PW 4 is Kripal Singh Purti, PW 5 is Chandra Mohan Deogam and PW 6 is Samucharan Deogam. These witnesses had given a vague statement that they handed over Rs. 100 or Rs. 125 to the head clerk, that is, Sheo Shankar Dhar in presence of the Secretary on an assurance that they will open a canteen and a Co-operative Society for the welfare of the retired Military personnel and for that no receipts were granted and actually canteen or Co-operative Society were not opened. 10. 100 or Rs. 125 to the head clerk, that is, Sheo Shankar Dhar in presence of the Secretary on an assurance that they will open a canteen and a Co-operative Society for the welfare of the retired Military personnel and for that no receipts were granted and actually canteen or Co-operative Society were not opened. 10. On the other hand, the evidence of PW 7 Dudheswar Ojha who is the Investigating Officer and his evidence is very material because he made a very detailed enquiry and in fact first Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 144/89 preferred by Sheo Shankar Dhar, has mainly relied upon his evidence and the documents produced on behalf of the prosecution and, thus, recorded an order of acquittal. From the evidence of this witness, it can be said and from Exts. 8 and 9 it also can be said that a co-operative in the name of Ex-serviceman Multi purpose Co-operative Soceity was formed and a separate account in the name of Co-operative Society was opened in Punjab National Bank and further Register was also maintained showing the names of persons from whom collection at the rate of Rs. 100 or Rs. 125 each was obtained. From the evidence of I. O. and the list given on behalf of the informant, that is, Ext. 10, it can be said that collection was made @ Rs. 100 or so from 188 retired Military personnel, and a sum of Rs. 21,000 was obtained and was deposited in the name of the Co- operative Society in Punjab National Bank at Chaibassa under account No. 165 and actually this money was not withdrawn by any of the petitioner. Thus from the evidence of the I. O. and the documents produced on behalf of the prosecution, it can be said that even if the petitioner realised any amount for opening Co-operative Society and Canteen for welfare of ex-serviceman, then certainly they have not cheated or misappropriated the amount ; rather the entire amount had been deposited in the Bank and they have not withdrawn tha amount. So the mere allegation that no receipt was granted for collection of such fund and if that is so non-granting of the receipt is certainly not an offence under Section 420, IPC. So the mere allegation that no receipt was granted for collection of such fund and if that is so non-granting of the receipt is certainly not an offence under Section 420, IPC. Moreover some of the witnesses also admitted in their cross-examination that they have no earlier information that their money collected by the petitioners had been deposited in Bank and if at all they had such information earlier they would not have instituted this case. 11. Thus ii appear that the witnesses were aiso not aware of the fact at the time of the lodging of their complaint to the informant that, in act, the accused persons had deposited their amount in the name of a Co-operative Socety in the Bank and, thus, the case has been instituted on a wrong impression. 12. On considering the entire evidence on the record, particularly, the evidence of the I. O. and the documents as referred to above, it can be said that no case under Section 420, IPC is made out as against any of the petitioners. In that view of the matter, the 1st Additional Sessions Judge was perfectly justified in recording an order of acquittal in Criminal Appeal No. 144/89 preferred by Sheo Shankar Dhai by his judgment dated 9-9-1982 and as such Criminal Revision No. 127/92-R preferred by the informant as against the order of acquittal, is liable to be dismissed and there is no merit in this revision. So far as Criminal Revision No. 69/91R preferred by Sri S. K. Das, is concerned, learned 2nd Additional Judge without properly appreciating the evidence on record dismissed the Criminal Appeal No. 143/89 vide his judgment dated 26th March, 1981 and accordingly Criminal Revision No. 69/91R is hereby allowed and the order of conviction as recorded by Sri Kamta, Prasad Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chakradhar- pur vide his judgment dated 21-8-1989 in G. R. Case No. 67/86 and further confirming the sentence by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 143/89 is hereby set aside and the petitioner A. K. Das is acquitted of the charges levelled against him and he is discharged from the liability of the bail bond. It is further ordered that there is no merit in the Criminal Revision No. 127/92(R) against the order of acquittal recorded by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Chaibassa in Criminal Appeal No. 144/89 and as such this revision is dismissed. Revision petitions 69/91 allowed. Revision No. 127/92 dismissed.