JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment and order dated 22.2.88 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Raisingh Nagar in Criminal Case No. 266/83 by which the learned Judicial Magistrate acquitted the accused respondents Mohan Lal and Tarbabu for offence under Sections 406 and 407 I.P.C. and also acquitted accused respondent Singara Singh for offence under Sections 406 and 407/109 I.P.C. 2. This appeal arises in the following circumstances : (i) On 5.9.83, P.W. 1 Babu Ram wrote a letter Ex. P. 1 to the President, New Janta Truck Union, Rai Singhnagar stating that on 30.8.83 in truck No. RJK 8197 through bilties Ex. P. 2 and Ex. P. 3 140 bags of gram were loaded and they were to be transported to Jalandhar (Punjab) upto 5.9.83 and since loaded goods did not reach the destination, therefore, this information was given by P.W. 1 Babu Ram to the President of New Janta Truck Union, Raisinghnagar. (ii) On receiving this letter Ex. P. 1, P.W. 3 Pyar Singh lodged a written report Ex. P 4 on 5.9.83 with the Police Station Raisinghnagar stating that in Truck No. RJK 8197, 140 bags of gram were loaded by M/s. Babu Ram Ram Chander through Bilties Ex. P. 2 and P. 3 and these bilites were issued by New Janta Truck Union, Raisinghnagar and on that truck, the accused respondent Mohan Singh was driver who put his signatures on the bilties to the effect that he received the goods in question. The owner of that truck Was accused respondent Tarbabu, but that truck did not reach Jalandhar (Punjab) upto 5.9.83 and on being enquired, it was found that the truck was near Padampur or somewhere near to that place and goods loaded in that truck have been misappropriated by Tarbabu and Mohan Singh and one another accused respondent Singara Singh. 3. On this report, police chalked out regular FIR Ex. P. 5 started investigation. 4. During investigation, the accused respondent Mohan Singh was got arrested through Ex. P. 8 on 25.9.83 and on his information, before P.W. 5 Ranjeet Singh and P.W. 6 Santosh Singh. 140 bags of gram were recovered from the truck in question through fard Ex. P. 9 on 25.9.83. 5. After investigation challan was filed by the police against the accused respondents. 6. P. 8 on 25.9.83 and on his information, before P.W. 5 Ranjeet Singh and P.W. 6 Santosh Singh. 140 bags of gram were recovered from the truck in question through fard Ex. P. 9 on 25.9.83. 5. After investigation challan was filed by the police against the accused respondents. 6. On 17.1.87 the charges for offence under Section 406 and 407 were framed against the accused respondent Mohan Lal and Tarbabu and for offence under Section 406 and 407 read with Section 109 I.P.C. against the accused respondent Singara Singh who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 7. During trial, as many as 9 witnesses have been produced on behalf of the prosecution and statements of accused respondents were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and two witnesses were examined in defence. 8. After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Magistrate acquitted the accused respondents through his judgment and order dated 22.2.88 inter alia holding : No breach of trust was committed by any of the accused respondents as the truck in question became out of order and the only mistake which was committed by the truck driver Mohan Lal that he did not inform this fact to the Union and thus, he acquitted the accused respondents. 9. Aggrieved from the said judgment and order of acquittal dated 22.2.88 this appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan. 10. In this appeal, the learned PR has argued that the findings of learned trial Magistrate by which he acquitted the accused respondent are erroneous one and they should be set aside and this state appeal should be allowed. 11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused respondents submits that the judgment and order of the trial Judge are based on correct appreciation of evidence and the same do not call any interference by this Court. 12. I have heard both and perused the record. 13. So far as the fact that 140 bags of gram were handed over by P.W. 1 Babu Ram to the accused respondent Mohan Lal who was driver of the truck is concerned, there is no dispute on this point as the same has been admitted by the accused respondent Mohan Lal in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and his defence was that since the truck became out of order and, therefore, he could not take those bags upto Jalandhar. 14. 14. There is also no dispute that on 25.9.83, the said bags were recovered at the instance of accused respondent Mohan Lal and they were handed over to P.W. 1 Babu Ram and P.W. 1 Babu Ram has admitted in his cross-examination that he received the goods back after one and 1/2 months. 15. The question is whether by keeping the goods for the period from 30.8.83 to 25.9.83, the offence of criminal breach of trust has been committed by the accused respondents or not. 16. It may be stated here that accused respondent Mohan Lal was driver of the truck and accused respondent Tarbabu was owner of the truck and Singara Singh was the President of another Union. 17. To prove the charge for offence under Section 406 I.P.C. the prosecution has to prove the following two points : (i) That the accused was entrusted with property or with dominion over it. (ii) That he (a) misappropriated it, or (b) converted it to his own use, or (c) used it, or (d) disposed of it. 18. To make out a case of criminal breach of truck, it is not sufficient to show that the article received retained, but it must also be shown that the accused disposed of it in some way other than in which he was bound to apply it and that he did so dishonestly. The mere fact that the accused respondent did not take the goods to its destination for which it was given to him does not make an offence of criminal breach of trust. There must be some dishonest use of goods to constitute the offence. Mere retention of goods does not necessarily raise a presumption of dishonest misappropriation to ones own use but dishonest misappropriation may sometimes be inferred from the circumstances without direct evidence. 19. In the present case the goods were loaded on 30.8.83 and they were got recovered on 25.9.83 in the same condition. 20. From the evidence produced by the prosecution the fact that there was dispute between the two truck union of which the accused a respondent Singara Singh was President is well proved. P.W. 1 Babu Ram has clearly admitted that there was dispute between the truck Union, Padampur and the truck Union Raisinghnagar. 20. From the evidence produced by the prosecution the fact that there was dispute between the two truck union of which the accused a respondent Singara Singh was President is well proved. P.W. 1 Babu Ram has clearly admitted that there was dispute between the truck Union, Padampur and the truck Union Raisinghnagar. P.W. 2 Vijay Singh also admitted that the accused respondent Singara Singh was president of Truck Union, Padampur and he did not allow to pass that truck through his area and accused respondent Singara Singh stopped that truck. This is one aspect of the matter. Another aspect which prevailed over the trial Magistrate is that the since the truck became defective, therefore, the accused respondent Mohan Lal who was driver of the truck was not in a position to take the goods to Jalandhar and his mistake as pointed out by the learned Judicial Magistrate is that he did not inform the truck Union, Raisinghnagar. 21. Might be this reason, but the fact that since the goods in question were got recovered in the same condition, therefore, in these circumstances to infer that the accused respondents were having dishonest intention in retaining the goods upto 25.9.83 cannot be accepted. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the second ingredient. 22. The position of law with respect of hearing appeal against acquittal has been made clear by the Honble Supreme court in so many judgments and for that the important judgment of Ajit Samant v. State of Karnataka reported in AIR 1997 (SC) 3251 may be referred to. 23. While hearing appeal against acquittal, no doubt the High Court possesses all the powers, but the High Court has to keep in view the fact that presumption of innocence is still available in favour of the accused and if the High Court on scrutiny of material available on record is of the opinion that there is another view which can reasonably be taken, then the view which favours the accused should be adopted. 24. 24. In my considered opinion, the findings of acquittal of the learned Judicial Magistrate are based on correct appreciation' of evidence and the reasons which has been assigned by the learned Magistrate are reasonable and plausible and cannot be entirely and effectively dislodged or demolished and this Court sitting and hearing appeal against acquittal would not like to disturb the order of acquittal merely on flimsy grounds. 25. Since the learned Judicial Magistrate has arrived at the findings just quoted above and since they are based on correct appreciation of evidence, this Court should also give proper weight and consideration as the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses must be respected. Apart from this, the Court should be very slow in disturbing the findings of facts arrived at by the learned trial Magistrate had advantage of seeing the witnesses and even if two reasonable conclusions can be drawn on evidence on record, the High Court should as a matter of judicial caution refrain from interfering with the order of acquittal recorded by the court below. For the reasons mentioned above, the present state appeal is dismissed after confirming the judgment and order dated 22.2.88 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar. Appeal dismissed. *******