P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned Additional Public prosecutor. ( 2 ) THE Sub-Inspector of Police, Gudivada rural police Station filed charge-sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under section 409 and 477-A IPC. ( 3 ) THE episode of the prosecution is as hereunder: the accused worked as paid secretary of yalamarru Primary Agricultural Co-operative society during the period from 23-11 -1974 to 22-11-1981. The accused was expected to disburse loans to the members, collect the same and remit the amounts into the financing bank. He was also expected to maintain the records being the Chief Executive of the society. During the year 1977-78, the accused collected the amounts from the members viz. , L. Ws. 1 to 3 i. e. , N. Suryakanthamma, atluri Rangarao and Nagulla Kutumbarao and issued receipts to them. He did not bring the said amounts into the cash book and he did not post the same into the loan ledgers. He did not credit the said amount in the financing bank. The accused maintained a separate receipt book for the said purpose. The counter foils were kept with him and thereby misappropriated an amount of rs. 3535-80 ps. On 30-3-1978, the accused collected an amount of Rs. 576/- from P. W. 2 and issued receipts to him, but he altered the figures in the counter foil and credited rs. 276/- in the cash book and thereby misappropriated the balance amount of rs. 300/- and falsified the accounts by tampering the counter foil. Basing on the above said irregularities, an audit was conducted and a report was sent to the divisional Co-operative Officer, Gudivada, who in turn ordered another enquiry after getting enquiry report. He obtained the sanction of prosecution orders and got the said sanction orders from the Collector. Basing on the same, a complaint was lodged before the police and the same was registered as FIR in Crime No. 102 of 1992. ( 4 ) THE evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 7 was recorded. P. W. 1 who is an independent witness simply deposed that his part of the loan paid to the accused on 24-4-1978 was misappropriated by the accused and he came to know about the same through the enquiry officer. But however, receipts were not produced before the Court and the enquiry officer did not seize the said receipts from the witness. But however, receipts were not produced before the Court and the enquiry officer did not seize the said receipts from the witness. ( 5 ) P. W. 2 deposed in his evidence that he repaid the entire loan amount with interest to the accused on 13-3-1979 and got the receipt from him and the receipt was handed over to the enquiry officer. However, in the cross- examination, P. W. 2 was unable to depose the particulars of the receipts and other particulars relating to mode of payment. ( 6 ) P. W. 3 is the second enquiry officer and he is also unable to speak over the contents of his enquiry report. ( 7 ) P. W. 4-Divisional Co-operative Officer deposed about the lodging of the complaint and getting sanction orders for prosecuting the accused. ( 8 ) P. W. 5-Assistant General Manager visited the society noticing the irregularities committed by the accused and brought the same to the Co-operative officials, but he failed to state the specific irregularities committed by the accused. ( 9 ) P. W. 6 is the first enquiry officer and the enquiry completely based on the statements of the members who stated before him as parrot saying that the accused committed some irregularities, without producing any material and without registers of the society and without verification of the said records. ( 10 ) AS already referred to supra, the accused was charged with Sections 409 and 477-AIPC. Section 409 I PC dealing with Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent:-"whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property in his capacity of a public servant, or in the way of his business as a banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. "section 477-A I PC dealing with falsification of accounts:-"whoever being a clerk, officer or servant, or employed or acting in the capacity of a clerk, officer or servant, willfully, and with intent to defraud, destroys, Alters, mutilates or falsifies any book, electronic record, paper, writing, valuable security, or account which belongs to or is in the possession of his employer, or has been received by him for or on behalf of his employer, or willfully, and with intent to defraud, makes or abets the making of any false entry in, or omits or alters or abets the omission or alteration of any material particular from or in, any such book, electronic record, paper, writing, valuable security or account, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both. "from the reading of the provisions referred to supra and also in the light of the evidence available on record, it is clear that none of the ingredients of the aforesaid provisions had been satisfied by the prosecution and hence, for want of evidence, acquittal had been recorded. ( 11 ) IN the light of the findings recorded by the learned Special Court for trial of offences under A. P. Co-operative Societies Act, vijayawada, this Court is to the considered opinion that the findings are to be confirmed. Hence, the findings of the Court below are hereby confirmed. ( 12 ) ACCORDINGLY, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.