JUDGEMENT - VISHNU SAHAI, J. :---Aggrieved by the Judgment and order dated 28-10-1983, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thane, in Case No. 10038 of 1980, acquitting the respondent for an offence punishable under section 409 I.P.C., the State of Maharashtra has preferred the present appeal under section 378(1) Cr.P.C. 2.The prosecution case in brief is that the respondent was a Police Head Constable attached to Kasa Police Station during the period 4-10-1976 to 8-10-1976 and 6-2-1977 to 19-10-1977. He was given duty of writer constable. During this period, he received cash of Rs. 1493.50 towards supplementary bills, Rs. 700/- towards Motor vehicle deposit, Rs. 260/- towards copying fee and Rs. 603/- as contingency amount which he misappropriated and converted for his use. The total misappropriation is shown as Rs. 3406.40 ps. According to the prosecution, the Additional D.S.P. Shivtarkar in his inspection note found that there was misappropriation of accounts in Kasa Police Station and consequently, asked P.W. 1 Pandharinath Patil an Accountant in the D.S.P. Office, Thane to visit the Police Station and check the accounts. Pandharinath Patil consequently visited Kasa Police Station. During the enquiry, he did not find cash books and account books at the Police Station. He made inquiries from S.I. Gurule and the same revealed that the respondent was looking after the accounts. He also found that cash book of Kasa Police Station was not written for the period from 15-10-76 to 19-10-77. On making detailed inquiries, he found that there was no account of Rs. 38,569.87 at the Police Station. Hence, he made a report to the Dy.S.P. Office Exhibit 20. Thereafter, investigation was given to the C.I.D. The C.I.D. investigated the matter and came to the conclusion that misappropriation was only to the extent of Rs. 3406.40. It (investigation) also revealed that respondent was in charge of the accounts as Writer Head Constable. Consequently, a charge sheet under section 409 I.P.C. was submitted against him. 2A.In the trial Court, the respondent was tried for an offence under section 409 I.P.C. He pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried. His defence was that he was not writer Head Constable during the period 4-10-76 to 8-10-76 and 6-2-77 to 19-10-77. In other words, he denied misappropriation of the amounts at the Kasa Police Station. His defence was that he was not writer Head Constable during the period 4-10-76 to 8-10-76 and 6-2-77 to 19-10-77. In other words, he denied misappropriation of the amounts at the Kasa Police Station. 3.During the trial, the prosecution examined only two witnesses namely P.W. 1 Head Constable Pandharinath Patil and Police Constable Shaligram Shandilya, P.W. 2. After assessing the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the trial Magistrate vide impugned Judgment acquitted the respondent. 4.We have heard Mrs. Jyoti Subhash Pawar, learned Counsel for the appellant at some length. We have also perused the deposition of the prosecution witnesses and the impugned judgment. After giving our anxious consideration to the matter, we find that this appeal is devoid of substance and deserves to be dismissed. The Chief Judicial Magistrate in a brief but, well-written judgment has given cogent reasons for acquitting the respondent. He has held that the main ingredient of the offence of section 409 I.P.C. namely entrustment of property has not been established in the instant case. In para 7, he has observed that although P.Ws. 1 and 2 had stated that the respondent was working as Head Constable at the Police Station during the relevant period, but, the prosecution has not produced a single document which would prove that the respondent was appointed as writer head constable in Kasa Police Station. In the said para, he has also held that no explanation is for the coming from the side of the prosecution for not adducing required documentary evidence. Another reason assigned by the Chief Judicial Magistrate is that report of P.W. 1 given to Dy.S.P. shows that Head Constable Sawant was responsible for the misappropriation but, the prosecution has not given any explanation for not prosecuting him. The Chief Judicial Magistrate has further remarked that although the prosecution has relied on many receipts, to prove that during the said period, cash was received at the Police Station but, none of them are signed by the respondent. On the converse, they are signed by Police Station Officer. They show cash was received by the S.I. of police. The Chief Judicial Magistrate in these circumstances, has concluded that there is no evidence to show that amounts sent to the Police Station was received by the respondent. On the converse, they are signed by Police Station Officer. They show cash was received by the S.I. of police. The Chief Judicial Magistrate in these circumstances, has concluded that there is no evidence to show that amounts sent to the Police Station was received by the respondent. He has further observed that the evidence is that cash book is written every day by Police Station Officer and it is also signed by him so he was also responsible for the misappropriation of the amount. The Chief Judicial Magistrate has further observed that although allegation against the respondent is that he misappropriated the amounts, yet no complaint was lodged at the Police Station. A perusal of para 15 of the statement of P.W. 1, in our Judgment, also absolves the respondent of having committed misappropriation. 5.On assessment of evidence of the two prosecution witnesses, the Chief Judicial Magistrate concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove that the respondent performed the duties as a Writer Constable during the said period and was entrusted, with the money involved, at the police Station in his capacity as a Writer Head Constable. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has also referred to some decisions which lay down that in a case under section 409 I.P.C., the prosecution must establish that the accused was authorised to receive the amount and an entrustment was made to him. The Chief Judicial Magistrate has also acquitted the respondent on the ground that although he was a public servant and sanction prior to initiating his prosecution was a condition precedent but, the same has not been obtained. This is the requirement of section 197 Cr.P.C. 6.In an appeal against acquittal, this Court has to examine whether the view of acquittal was a possible view or not. In our opinion the view of acquittal in the instant case, was not only a possible view but a wholly plausible one. 7.In the circumstances, we do not find any merit in this appeal and dismiss the same. The respondent is on bail. His bail bonds stand cancelled and sureties discharged. Before parting with this Judgment, we would like to place on record our appreciation for the assistance rendered to us by Mrs. Jyoti Subhash Pawar in the disposal of this appeal. 7.In the circumstances, we do not find any merit in this appeal and dismiss the same. The respondent is on bail. His bail bonds stand cancelled and sureties discharged. Before parting with this Judgment, we would like to place on record our appreciation for the assistance rendered to us by Mrs. Jyoti Subhash Pawar in the disposal of this appeal. In case an application for a certified copy of this Judgment is made, the same shall be issued on an expedited basis. Appeal dismissed. *****