Honble SINGH, J.–Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. (2). This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 24th May, 1996 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Cases, Merta in Cri. Revision No.11/96 (14/95), whereby the impugned order dated 7th March, 91 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) cum Judicial Magistrate, Nawa accep-ting the final report submitted by the police was upheld. (3). In brief the case of the petitioner Gopal Lal is that he was employed by the non-petitioner Nagulal and Shantilal and he served in the capacity of the driver of the truck and Palledar and during the period he was in their employment, he was asked by Nagulal and Shantilal to bring the ornaments of his mother and deposit the same with them and that he deposited the ornaments belonging to his mother with Nagulal and Shantilal, who executed a receipt evidencing the deposit of golden ornaments with them. Regarding the receipt, which is alleged to have been executed by Nagulal and Shantilal, the petitioners case is that the original receipt was handed over by him to the Police Inspector and therefore, that receiptis not available with the petitioner. (4). From the photo-stat copies of the statements recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, it appears that Gopal Lal, Sojinath and Suja Devi were examined on oath by the learned Judicial Magistrate under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. After carefully considering the evidence of the above mentioned witnesses, the learned Judicial Magistrate dismissed the complaint. In revision, the learned Special Judge,SC/ST Cases, upheld the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate. (5). It is true that the oral evidence of the three witnesses produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate appears to be quite attractive, because all of them have stated that golden ornaments belonging to the mother of the complainant were given to Nagulal and Shantilal. But, the weakest point of the petitioners caseis that the original receipt, which is alleged to have been executed by Nagulal and Shantilal as evidence having received the golden ornaments from the petitioner was not filed and no satisfactory explanation appears to have been given, why the same was not filed. But, the weakest point of the petitioners caseis that the original receipt, which is alleged to have been executed by Nagulal and Shantilal as evidence having received the golden ornaments from the petitioner was not filed and no satisfactory explanation appears to have been given, why the same was not filed. Under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act, if a party on whom the burden to prove a fact lies, does not produce the evidence which could be pro-duced, the Court may infer that the evidence, if produced, would not have supported the case of the party. As observed by the learned Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Sris Chandra Nandy vs. Rakhalananda (1), the rules of evidence are based on human experience and they are very important. The parties are under a legal obligation to produce best evidence before the Court for the purpose of pro-viding the facts; the burden of which lies on them. Failure to produce best evidence empowers the Court to draw adverse inference against them under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act. (6). In this case, the petitioner has not given any satisfactory explanation for not producing the original receipt alleged to have been executed by the non-peti-tioner no.1 and 2. In view of these facts, it was within the powers of the learned Judicial Magistrate and the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Cases to draw adverse inference against the petitioner. (7). For the reasons mentioned above, there appears no sufficient ground to interfere with the orders passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate and the learnedSpecial Judge SC/ST Cases. The petition is therefore, dismissed at the admission stage.