JUDGMENT : A.K. Parichha, J. - The Appellant filed complaint case bearing ICC Case No. 64 of 1984 (T.R. No. 21 of 1988) in the court of Learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Nayagarh (in short "the Magistrate") alleging misappropriation of certain stock of Khamarsahi Service Co-operative Society (hereinafter referred to as the "Society") by the Respondent who was working as Sales-man in the retail out-let of that Society. Learned Magistrate after considering the allegation, statement, etc. took cognizance of the offence u/s 408 of the Indian Penal Code and summoned the Respondent to face the trial. The Respondent appeared and took the plea of complete denial. To prove the allegation of misappropriate, the Appellant-complainant examined witnesses and proved certain documents. The Respondent did not examine any one, but produced some cancelled money receipts in his defence. Learned Magistrate after considering these evidence came to hold that the entrustment and misappropriation of stock was not established against the Respondent and accordingly, acquitted him of the charge u/s 408 of the Indian Penal Code. Aggrieved, the Appellant has filed this appeal to set aside that order of acquittal. 2. Mr. Pratyusha Ranjan Patnaik, Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence and circumstance put forth by the Appellant and basing on certain irrational interpretation of law and facts recorded the order of acquittal. He specifically indicates that when the admission of the Respondent was there on the documents Exts. 1 and 2, there was no scope of disbelieving the allegation that the Respondent was working as salesman in the society and that he had misappropriated articles worth Rs. 1467.36 paise. Learned Counsel emphatically submits that the evidence on record clearly prove the charge u/s 408 of the Indian Penal Code and, therefore, the Respondent should be convicted for the said offence. 3. Though some counsels have filed Vakalatnama for the Respondent, no one appears today to argue the matter. 4. The specific allegations of the complainant-appellant was that the Respondent was working as sales man in the society and when the stock of the society was checked on 26.3.1984, shortage of stock worth Rs. 1467.36 paise was found. It was also alleged that after this detection, Respondent deposited Rs. 200/- and gave an undertaking in writing to refund the rest amount. 1467.36 paise was found. It was also alleged that after this detection, Respondent deposited Rs. 200/- and gave an undertaking in writing to refund the rest amount. To establish this charge, the Secretary of the Society-P.W. 1, Branch Manager of the Central Co-operative Bank, Nayagarh-P.W. 2 and the Branch manager of the Main Branch of the Co-operative Society-P.W. 3 were examined. These witnesses stated that the Respondent was working as salesman in the Society and that during the verification, shortage of stock to the tune of Rs. 1467.36 paise was found and the Respondent deposited Rs. 200/-. The undertaking and the verification-sheet were marked as Exts. 1 and 2 respectively. 5. The Respondent denied that he was working as salesman in the society and that he was entrusted with the goods. He also denied that he ever misappropriated any article of the society. In view of this stout denial, Learned Trial Court held that the document regarding appointment of the Respondent as salesman in the Co-operative Society and entrustment of the property of the Society should have been produced. In the absence of such documentary evidence he refused to rely on the oral statements of P. Ws. 1 to 3. On record it is seen that Respondent was initially working as peon in the Co-operative Society but according to the P. Ws., he was later on made Asst. Secretary-cum-Sales man of the Society and was in charge of the articles of the Sales Centre. No document or record was produced to establish the claim that the Respondent was the Assistant Secretary-cum-Sales man in charge of the articles of the Sales Centre at the relevant point of time. In fact, no document was also there to show that the articles which are alleged to have been misappropriated were entrusted with the Respondent. When such evidence were not available, there was scope for doubt and the statement of P. Ws. 1 to 3 could not have been sufficient to establish the charge u/s 408, Indian Penal Code against the Appellant. One cannot lose sight of the settled legal position that the prosecution has to prove the ingredients of entrustment and misappropriation against the accused beyond all the reason able doubts and if there is any doubt about the entrustment on element of misappropriation, then the accused becomes entitled to benefit of doubt. One cannot lose sight of the settled legal position that the prosecution has to prove the ingredients of entrustment and misappropriation against the accused beyond all the reason able doubts and if there is any doubt about the entrustment on element of misappropriation, then the accused becomes entitled to benefit of doubt. From the material availabe on record, no doubt a strong suspicion arises about the involvement of the Respondent but the evidence on record are not sufficient to prove the ingredients of Section 408, Indian Penal Code against him beyond all reasonable doubts. Therefore, the order of acquittal recorded by the Learned Magistrate cannot be faulted or termed as illegal. 6. For the above said reasons, the Crl. Appeal is found to be without any merit and the same is dismissed. Criminal Appeal dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed