This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu on 17-7-2003, whereby he has acquitted Krishan Kumar, accused, of offence under Sections 420/467/468 RPC. Precisely, the case of the prosecution enumerated from record is that on 16-3-1993, one Ravi Singh, Managing Partner of M/s Kiwi Finance Corporation and Kiwi Trading Corporation issued a self-cheque bearing No. 641167 dated 16-3-1993 and deposited in Citizen Co-operative Bank, Warehouse Branch, Jammu. It is stated that the cheque was deposited by Pawan Kumar and receipt obtained in respect thereof from accused Krishan Kumar, who was posted as Accountant in the said Bank. The cheque was for an amount of Rs. 20,000/-. It was, further, found that the cheque amount has not been credited to the account of complainant-Company and some one has withdrawn the amount and encashed the cheque. A complaint lodged to the Bank, which led to the registration of a case against accused, Krishan Kumar, whose signatures, according to the complainant, were found on the receipt issued at the time of deposit of the cheque with the Bank. After investigation, the charge sheet was presented against the accused before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu. The Trial Court, after framing charge, recorded prosecution evidence and after hearing the arguments, found that prosecution having miserably failed to prove the charge against the accused, passed an order of acquittal of the accused vide his order dated 17-7-2003. It is this order of acquittal propounded by the Trial Court, which became subject matter of challenge by the State on variety of grounds. 2. It is stated that the Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective and erroneously drawn an order of acquittal without adverting to the material evidence on record. There is copious evidence, both oral and documentary, placed on record by the prosecution, which has escaped attention of the Trial Court and resulted in the order of acquittal of the factual frailty, liable to be set aside in appeal. 3. I have heard Mr. B.S. Salathia, learned Senior Additional Advocate General appearing for the Appellant State, and also perused the judgment rendered by the Trial Court in context with the evidence on record, meticulously. 4. 3. I have heard Mr. B.S. Salathia, learned Senior Additional Advocate General appearing for the Appellant State, and also perused the judgment rendered by the Trial Court in context with the evidence on record, meticulously. 4. It is well settled proposition of law that in order to sustain a conviction of the accused, link after link must be forged so firmly in the credible testimony of the witnesses that it; manacles the accused inescapably in the commission of the crime. The witnesses examined and the evidence produced must be of sterling nature that leads only to the hypothesis that it is the accused alone, who is guilty of offence incompatible with his innocence. 5. Adverting to the evidence on record, it is pertinent to point out that the investigation of the case has been conducted in a most casual, cavalier and reckless manner, so is the prosecution conducted during the trial. The material witnesses, namely, Pawan Kumar, who was deputed with a cheque to be deposited in the Bank by the complainant, hand writing expert and the Investigating Officer have not been examined and no reason has been assigned for withholding their evidence by the prosecution. PW Udham Singh, a partner of the complainant-Firm, in his evidence stated that a cheque for Rs. 20,000/- was deposited in the Bank in its Warehouse Branch through Pawan Kumar, their employee. The said amount, however, was never credited into their account and has been withdrawn/encashed by some other person. It is also in his evidence that the receipt in respect of the cheque was issued by Krishan Kumar, accused, working in the Bank at the relevant time. He, however, admitted that the signatures of the accused do not exist on the cheque. He, however, expressed ignorance about the person, who has encashed the cheque. Similarly, Ravi Singh, complainant, is another witness, examined by the prosecution, who happened to be the Managing Director of the complainant-Firm, affirmed that Pawan Kumar was detailed to the Bank for the deposit of cheque. He further stated that it was a self-cheque and their employee Pawan Kumar, instead of depositing the cash, has deposited the cheque in their account, but the same has been encashed by some one else on the following day. A report about the incidence was lodged by him. He further stated that it was a self-cheque and their employee Pawan Kumar, instead of depositing the cash, has deposited the cheque in their account, but the same has been encashed by some one else on the following day. A report about the incidence was lodged by him. This witness has unambiguously stated that signatures of one Ram Singh were found to exist at the back of the cheque. He also stated that the cheque was encashed in the name of Ram Singh. He also made no secret of the fact that on the receipt pertaining to the deposit of the cheque, there was no entry on the pay in slip regarding cheque Number and the date, though it referred to Rs. 20,000/- cash. He also submitted that there was some cutting found in the receipt, which was in the hand writing of their employee Pawan Kumar. He also expressed his awareness of the Bank Rules that the self-cheque is to be encashed and then cash is to be deposited in the account. In this case, Pawan Kumar, their employee, has stated to have deposited the self-cheque. Pawan Kumar has not been examined as a witness to prove the mode and manner, and tone and tenor, in which the deposit was made, to whom it was made and by whom the receipt was signed. 6. Another witness examined by the prosecution was Vinod Koul, Manager, Citizen Co-operative Bank, who stated that the complainant approached him with a complaint that amount of Rs. 20,000/- was deposited, but the same has not been credited in the account of the Firm. That the receipt with regard to the deposit of the cheque was also shown to him and the payment of the cheque was made to one Ram Singh. He also stated that the cheque was self-cheque, which is not debited in their account. He also stated with unerring clarity that the accused has not received payment of the cheque and the receipt shown to him did not bear the name of the Bank and number of the cheque. The cashier in the Bank was Rakesh Kumar in those days. The witness further stated to have conducted an enquiry and found that signatures on the receipt do not tally with the signatures of the employees of the bank. The cashier in the Bank was Rakesh Kumar in those days. The witness further stated to have conducted an enquiry and found that signatures on the receipt do not tally with the signatures of the employees of the bank. The Trial Court, after appreciation, assessment and estimation of the evidence as to its nature and quality on the touchstone of its reliability and sufficiency, reached a conclusion that the accusation against the accused remained unproved for want of sufficient and trustworthy evidence. He further found that neither the hand writing expert nor the Investigating Officer, nor Pawan Kumar, the material witnesses in the case, have been examined without any justification. There is not a shred of evidence on record to prove that the amount was drawn/encashed by the accused and misappropriated. The prosecution has, thus, awfully failed to prove the guilt of the accused by impeachable, cogent and acceptable evidence. The prosecution evidence is, thus, found qualitatively and quantitatively insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond any pale of doubt, an essential requirement under criminal jurisprudence, for recording the conviction of the accused. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any infirmity or palpable illegality in the order of acquittal propounded by the Trial Court on the appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, which needs interference in appeal. 8. In the result, the inevitable conclusion reached is that there is no merit in this appeal and is, accordingly dismissed.