JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J.(Oral) State has filed Ibis appeal against the judgment passed by Shri P.C. Sharma, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan, District Solan in case No.60/2 of 1989 dated 24-4-1990. By means of impugned judgment, die respondent has been acquitted of the offence under Sections 437/380 of die Indian Penal Code registered against him vide FIR No. 104 of 1988, Police Station Dharampur. 2. According to the prosecution, a complaint was made by Nathu Ram, Secretary of Agricultural Co-operative Society, Khalogra, within die jurisdiction of Police Station, Dharampur alleging that he is the Secretary of the Society for the last 12 years. After closing the office as usual at 5-00 P.M. he went to his residence on 8-11-1988. Next day, he did not come to his office being Diwali and thus on 10-l 1-1988 when as per routine, he came to ate office of Society at 10-00 A.M. and was trying to open the same, it was observed by him that bolt of the door was open and lock was missing therefrom. In these circumstances he suspected that some un-known person had entered the office premises of the Society with a purpose to commit theft. The complainant did not open die door so as to keep the inside position intact. On receipt of this information initially a case under Section 457 of the Indian Penal Code came to be register xi was commenced. During die course of investigation, it came to light that on 9- 11-1988 the respondent was proceeding from his house towards Solan, who showed an envelope filled with currency notes to one Sukh Ram (PW-1) while the former was under the influence of liquor. On this basis the respondent was interrogated by the police and while in its custody, he made statement vide Ex.PW-1/A under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act as well as vide Ex.PW-1/D regarding the amount spent by him out of the case property for the purchase of Radio from Solan Radio Service. On this basis the respondent was interrogated by the police and while in its custody, he made statement vide Ex.PW-1/A under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act as well as vide Ex.PW-1/D regarding the amount spent by him out of the case property for the purchase of Radio from Solan Radio Service. Pursuant to such disclosure statements, the prosecution claims to have recovered a sum of Rs.9,053/-from below the heap of ashes from the court-yard of the respondent which were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PW-1/B as well as Ike Hammer and Screw-driver which were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PWl/C. Similarly, vide-Ex.PW6/B, currency notes of the value of Rs.230/- were taken into possession from M/s Solan Radio Service, Solan and the Transistor was also taken into possession vide recoveiymemoEx.PW-1/E from the room of the respondent. After completion of the investigation, challan was put-in against the respondent before the trial court who after being satisfied that there are prima facie grounds to proceed against the respondent, framed charges under Sections 457/380 of the Indian Penal Code against the respondent and after conclusion of the trial, the respondent has been acquitted, hence this appeal. 3. Shri Chauhan, learned Assistant Advocate General, in support of this appeal ha; urged that the prosecution has been able to bring home the guilt against the respondent and in this behalf he has referred to the statements of PW-1 Sukh Ram - complainant as well as to that of PW-3 and thereby he pointed out that recovery of the case property stands established beyond any shadow of doubt, pursuant to the statement of the respondent that too from below the heap of ashes in his courtyard. 4. In order to succeed, the prosecution first of all was required to connect the respondent with the commission of the offence of lurking house trespass With the purpose of committing the offence of theft In this behalf, there is no direct evidence and the circumstantial evidence produced by the prosecution in the shape of PW-1 Sukh Ram completely demolishes the case insofar as facts relating to commission of theft are concerned. Another material aspect of this case is that before the complainant could allege the theft of the cash from the office of the Society as its Secretary, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to have proved that the Society on the evening of 8-11-1988 was in fact possessed of the amount complained to have been stolen. This could be done by producing the relevant cash book etc. to show that the Society in fact was possessed of the amount in question and further that the said amount had been kept in trunk (s) by the official concerned. Admittedly, there is no such evidence in this behalf. 5. When a reference is made to the statement of PW-1, it is obvious that he has categorically stated that the respondent was not drunk when he had shown Rs.200/- to him as detailed in the F.I.R. Even otherwise, there is no presumption that the money which was there with the respondent regarding its stolen property. That being so the prosecution case, as alleged against the respondent, appears to be improbable. Similarly, when a reference is made to Ex.PW-1/A, statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, it is dated 21st November, 1988 at the same time reference to Ex.PW-1/D, shows that it is dated 24th November, 1988. In case the respondent was in custody, it does not appear to logic that he would make two disclosures on two different dates or the police would not interrogate him in one go. No explanation has some forth from the prosecution in this behalf. 6. Needless to reiterate that distance between might have and must have -has to be covered by the prosecution by bringing a cogent, reliable and trust-worthy evidence to prove beyond any shadow of doubt that it is the accused alone who is responsible for commission of the offence and none else. It is by now further well settled that when two views are possible on examination of prosecution evidence, one favourable to the accused needs to be followed. Learned Assistant Advocate General was not in a position to point out any such infirmity necessitating interference with the judgment recorded by the trial Court. 7. No other point has been urged by the learned Assistant Advocate General is support of this appeal. 8. Learned Assistant Advocate General was not in a position to point out any such infirmity necessitating interference with the judgment recorded by the trial Court. 7. No other point has been urged by the learned Assistant Advocate General is support of this appeal. 8. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the acquittal recorded by the trial Court calls for no interference and accordingly the appeal is dismissed. -