JUDGMENT D.P. Singh, J. 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) against the order of acquittal dated 23.11.1996 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khunti, Ranchi in G.R. Case No. 601 of 1990 Tr. No. 287 of 1996, by which the respondents were acquitted of the charges under Sections 408, 409, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that the respondents were serving in Regional Gramin Bank, Murhu Branch, Ranchi as Branch Manger and the Cashier respectively on 18.6.1990. According to the prosecution case on that dale Rs. 10,000/- was withdrawn from said branch of this Bank to be deposited in Bank of India, Khunti Branch through debit voucher by the cashier, Jawahar Swansi, with permission of respondent Vijay Kumar Thakur, the Branch Manager. However, that amount was never deposited in Khunti Branch of Bank of India. As such, the said amount has been defalcated; misappropriated resulting in cheating of the Bank, which employed them. 3. The matter was reported by the Chairman, Regional Gramin Bank, Dr. B.N. Singh, to Murhu Police Station, on the basis of which Murhu Police Station Case No. 66 of 1990 was registered. The police investigated the case and finally submitted charge-sheet against both the respondents as they were found involved in withdrawing the money and misappropriating it. The respondents were put on trial after framing charge on 18.9.1995. 4. The prosecution has examined altogether six witnesses in support of its case including the informant. However, the learned trial court having observed that the said withdrawal voucher was not produced to pinpoint the responsibility of anyone of the respondents regarding withdrawal of the amount in question. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the charges. 5. The State has preferred this appeal on the grounds that the learned trial court has misconstrued the facts on record and failed to appreciate the evidence showing the complicity of both the respondents in withdrawal of Rs. 10,000/- from the Bank, which was apparently, not deposited in the Bank of India, Khunti Branch. Therefore, in such circumstances, there is clear evidence available on record that both the respondents have connived and withdrawn the amount, having not deposited it; they should have been held guilty of the offences. It is further submitted that the factum of withdrawal of Rs. Therefore, in such circumstances, there is clear evidence available on record that both the respondents have connived and withdrawn the amount, having not deposited it; they should have been held guilty of the offences. It is further submitted that the factum of withdrawal of Rs. 10,000/- is not disputed nor denied by the respondents. Therefore, the acquittal of respondents on the basis of non-production of debit voucher, which was admittedly in possession of respondent Jawahar Swansi, cannot be maintained. 6. Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the trial court has rightly found and held the respondents not guilty in absence of the very basis of the prosecution case. According to Mr. Sahani, the prosecution could not prove beyond doubts that Rs. 10,000/- was withdrawn by any of the respondents and in that circumstance, the learned trial court rightly acquitted them giving benefit of doubt vide paragraphs- 16 and 20 of the impugned judgment. 7. I have gone through the lower court records and the impugned judgment minutely. The prosecution witnesses have asserted before the trial court that Rs. 10,000/- was withdrawn by the respondents jointly as the Branch Manager and the Cashier on that day, 18.6.1990. It has also come on record that withdrawal of the said amount was entered by these respondents in the Bank records. The respondents have not asserted anywhere that those withdrawals shown by the prosecution was false or concocted. They further have not asserted that the withdrawn amount was deposited in the Bank of India, Khunti Branch by them. A photocopy of the said voucher was produced by respondent Jawahar Swansi before the informant as the original voucher was missing. It is undisputed fact on record that the respondents as the Cashier and Branch Manager of the Bank on that day were custodian of the said voucher and other Bank records. The informant has asserted these facts in his statements before the trial court. It has further come on record that the Bank records shows withdrawal of Rs. 10,000/- on 18.6.1990 and the auditor has also reported this fact vide Ext.4. P.W.2 has brought on record the General Ledger Register and entries on it dated 18.6.1990 by respondent Jawahar Swansi and endorsed by respondent B.K. Tiwary vide Ext. 2 and 3. The payment Scroll Book also maintained by these respondents vide Ext. 2/1 has been proved beyond doubts. 10,000/- on 18.6.1990 and the auditor has also reported this fact vide Ext.4. P.W.2 has brought on record the General Ledger Register and entries on it dated 18.6.1990 by respondent Jawahar Swansi and endorsed by respondent B.K. Tiwary vide Ext. 2 and 3. The payment Scroll Book also maintained by these respondents vide Ext. 2/1 has been proved beyond doubts. He has specifically mentioned that the said amount was not deposited in the Bank of India, Khunti Branch. This witness has been cross-examined by both the respondents, but nowhere it has been disputed that the amount vide Ext. 2 and 3 were not withdrawn and further they have deposited in the Bank of India, khunti, Branch for the purpose for which the said amount was withdrawn. The respondents have not disputed these facts through in statements before the trial court under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Even the learned trial court has found that the said original voucher was obtained by respondent Jawahar Swansi on 10.9.1996 in paragraph-11 of the judgment. Therefore, the said original voucher was with the respondent No. 2 and by concealing that important document, this order of acquittal has been obtained. The learned trial court has also committed a mistake on record by not directing the respondent No. 2 to produce the said voucher for proper decision in this case. It is legitimately excepted that the trial court try to ascertain the truth and for that purpose any document or evidence which it feel necessary, may be directed to be produced before it for the purpose of just decision even at the time of judgment under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 8. The mater involves defalcation and misappropriation of Rs. 10,000/-, pubic money, by the respondents, bank employees. Having considered the facts and circumstances, I find that in the present case, the judgment and order dated 23.11.1996 acquitting the respondents cannot be maintained. 9. In the result, the judgment and order dated 23.11.1996 passed by the trial court acquitting the respondents from charges is hereby set aside with direction for fresh trial of the case after obtaining relevant documents, particularly the debit voucher said to be in possession of respondent Jawahar Swansi and to conclude the trial in accordance with provisions of law. 9. In the result, the judgment and order dated 23.11.1996 passed by the trial court acquitting the respondents from charges is hereby set aside with direction for fresh trial of the case after obtaining relevant documents, particularly the debit voucher said to be in possession of respondent Jawahar Swansi and to conclude the trial in accordance with provisions of law. Since the matter has remained pending for nearly fifteen years, the trial court should take steps for speedy trial giving full opportunity to both sides. Accordingly, this appeal stands disposed of. 10. Let the lower court records along with this order be remitted back to the trial court for needful at once. The respondents are directed to appear before the trial court within six weeks and co-operate in the trial, failing which, the trial court shall take all coercive steps for their arrest.