JUDGMENT 1. - The above mentioned all 3 Criminal Appeals are co-related and the allegations are also similar learned trial court has also considered two FIRs together in appeal No. 392/89 and in Judgments also the learned trial court has discussed and considered all facts of these three cases together, these three appeals are being decided by a common judgment. 2. The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 4.6.1998 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Sikar in Case No. 390/1974 (163/1973) by which he has acquitted the accused respondents (Deen Dayal and Ganpati Krishna) of the charges for the offence under Section 408 I.P.C. 3. The necessary facts giving rise to this appeal in brief are as follows: 4. A written report F.I.R. Ex.P-40 was filed before the Superintendent of Police, Sikar by the complainant Govind Singh Rawat PW-1, the Secretary Khadi Vikas Mandal, Govindgarh, Khadi Mandal, Sikar, alleging therein that the above Mandal was situated in Sikar and the accused respondents were 1 employed there. It was also mentioned in the report that both the accused respondents were responsible for the entire sales and business of the Mandal, Sikar and Khadi Bhandar Shop was under the said Mandal, Govindgarh. He further mentioned in the report that since there was some apprehension of misappropriation of the funds, an inquiry was got conducted through one Damodar Prasad Kanoongo. On inquiry, it was found that there was so many irregularities and misappropriation of funds by the accused respondents. It was further found that the accused respondents did not deposit the money to the concerned authorities in the office, on the other hand, they utilised the funds for in the nature of their own personal use. 5. Upon the aforesaid report and information, a case under Section 408, 420 IPC was registered against the accused respondents and investigation started. After due investigation, the police submitted a challan before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar for the offence under Section 408 and 420 against both the accused respondents. 6. On 18th July, 1984, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate framed charges for the offence under Section 408 and 420 IPC were framed against the accused respondents and the charges were read over and explained to the accused respondents who pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. 7. 6. On 18th July, 1984, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate framed charges for the offence under Section 408 and 420 IPC were framed against the accused respondents and the charges were read over and explained to the accused respondents who pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. 7. During trial, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. Thereafter the statement of accused respondent recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and four defence witnesses were also examined. 8. After completing the trial, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar has sentenced the accused respondent through his judgment and order dated 4.6.1988 and acquitted the respondents of the charges framed against them by holding that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused respondent. 9. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order dated 4.6.1988 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar, the State Government has preferred this appeal. 10. In this appeal it has been submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the learned trial court has not considered the statement of prosecution witnesses properly and should have been believed by the trial Magistrate. Thus, the impugned judgment and order are erroneous one and liable to be set aside. 11. The learned Public Prosecutor further contended that the learned trial court has not appreciated the evidence of prosecution in true perspective manner and the prosecution has fully proved the guilty of the accused respondents, hence, the accused respondents ought to have been convicted for the charges leveled against them. He further contended that learned trial court has wrongly held that the signature of the Deen Dayal Ex.P.17 has not been proved by the prosecution. The signature of the accused Deen Dayal has been fully proved by P.W.2 Damodar and P.W.4 Ziauddin. He has also contended that the learned trial court has wrongly held that Rs. 1401/- was deposited by the accused on 9.3.1972 and on the other hand, the learned trial court has failed to observe that where the money was deposited and that the prosecution has fully proved beyond any doubt that the money was misappropriated by the accused persons. He has also contended that the learned trial court has wrongly held that Rs. 1401/- was deposited by the accused on 9.3.1972 and on the other hand, the learned trial court has failed to observe that where the money was deposited and that the prosecution has fully proved beyond any doubt that the money was misappropriated by the accused persons. He has also contended that the learned trial court further did not care to corroborate the evidence of handwriting expert, therefore, the opinion of the handwriting expert cannot be treated as conclusive, hence the learned trial court failed to consider this aspect that the corroboration of the evidence of an expert i.e. handwriting expert was essential. Ultimately, the learned Public Prosecutor has prayed to this Court that this leave to appeal be granted and the accused respondents be convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 408 IPC. 12. On the other hand, Mr. S.S. Sunda and Mr. Nitin Jain have appeared on behalf of the accused respondents and argued that the impugned judgment and order of the court below passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar are based on the correct appreciation of evidence and after giving cogent reason, the learned Magistrate has acquitted the accused respondent of the charges framed against them and thus no interference is called for in the impugned order and judgment. 13. It is also contended by learned counsel for the accused respondents that in the present case there no allegation against both the accused respondents that they have used the money of Khadi Mandal in their own use or there is no allegation that they disposed of any property of Khadi Mandal. They further submitted that the only allegation against the accused respondents was that they took money from different departments and institutions in the name of Khadi Mandal and did not deposit the same in cash register and during trial the prosecution could not prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the learned trial court rightly acquitted the accused respondents. 14. Learned counsel for the accused respondents further contended that the prosecution has failed to prove any criminal breach of trust allegedly committed by the accused respondents. 14. Learned counsel for the accused respondents further contended that the prosecution has failed to prove any criminal breach of trust allegedly committed by the accused respondents. They also urged before the court that there are two contradictory statements regarding Ex.P1 and Ex.D1, and there is no evidence on record to prove any case against the accused respondents and they innocently involved in the criminal proceedings since last 35 years. 15. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant State and the learned counsel for the accused respondent. I have also gone through the record of the case and perused the impugned judgment and order dated 4.6.1988 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar and I find that the learned Magistrate has given cogent reasons for not relying upon the statement of prosecution witnesses. Now this court has to re-assess the evidence which has been recorded by the trial court and for that purpose P.W.1 Govind Singh has stated in his statement that he did not make any audit regarding misappropriation of money. Therefore, on what basis the accused respondent No. 1 has stated that the accused respondents have misappropriated the money of Khadi Mandal. Damodar Prasad P.W.2 (Auditor) has also not stated any thing in his evidence that on what basis he came to the conclusion that the accused respondents have misappropriated. P.W.7 Rameshwar Prasad (employee of education department) has stated in his evidence that department did not make any over payment. After checking goods and verifying from bill they made payment. He further stated that Khadi Mandal supplied goods of Rs. 5,990/- and after checking goods they made payment. It is submitted that the prosecution has alleged that the accused respondents supplied goods of Rs. 4,239/- and recovered Rs. 5,990/- after presenting false bill. This allegation itself falsified by statement of PW-8 Rameshwar who has stated that as per Bill No. 381 Ex.P-11 goods of Rs. 5,999.40 Paisa was supplied by Khadi Mandal and after verifying it, payment was made. Ultimately, the learned counsel for the accused respondents urged before this Court that in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the prosecution has totally failed to prove its case against the accused respondents and no illegality has been committed by the learned trial court in acquitting the accused respondents. 16. In the present case, there are two contradictory report regarding Ex.P.1. 16. In the present case, there are two contradictory report regarding Ex.P.1. It is submitted that the hand-writing expert P.W.10 C.T. Saraswat has given his opinion that signature of accused respondent Deendayal is similar to the signature found on Ex.D1 whereas D.W.-2 Krishan Charan Handwriting Expert has stated in his evidence that signature of accused Deen Dayal has no similarity with the signatures found on Ex-D1. Therefore, the learned trial court did not believe on Ex.D1 and acquitted the accused respondents. 17. It is also submitted that the learned counsel for the respondents that after registering the criminal case against the accused respondent Deendayal, the Khadi Mandal suspended him. The order of suspension was challenged in the Labour Court and the said court ordered to reinstate the accused respondent Deendayal. Thereafter the Khadi Mandal filed a writ petition against the order of Labour Court before this Court wherein while deciding the said writ petition, this Court held that the Khadi Mandal has failed to prove the charges of criminal breach of trust and cheating, therefore, the writ petition was dismissed. Hence, no illegality has been committed by the learned trial court and the appeal preferred by the State of Rajasthan deserves to be dismissed. 18. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the accused respondents that first information report was lodged in the month of March 1973 and the trial of case took a considerable time and came to be concluded in the year 1988 and the appeals preferred by the State now have came for hearing after a period of 35 years and the respondents are facing trial of criminal proceedings since last 34 years is sufficient to dismiss the State Appeals only on this ground. They further submitted that it is settled law that in appeal against acquittal where two views possible then the Appellate Court should not interfere with the finding of acquittal recorded by court below. 19. The Court attention was also drawn on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umrao v. State of Haryana & Ors., reported in 2006(2) WLC (SC) Cri. 19. The Court attention was also drawn on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umrao v. State of Haryana & Ors., reported in 2006(2) WLC (SC) Cri. 98 : 2006 SCC (x) p. 136 wherein their Lordships of Apex Court has observed in para No. 26 held as under : "It is now well settled that if two views are possible, the appellate court should not interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the court below." 20. The learned counsel for the accused respondents have also placed reliance on the following judgments in AIR 1965 SC 1433 , 1974 Cr.LJ 447, 1964 SC 1563, 1974 SC 1570, AIR 1966 SC 266 & 1980 SC 666. 21. Looking to the evidence just discussed above, it can easily be said that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused respondent for the offence under Section 408 IPC for which the accused respondent was charged and the learned trial court has rightly acquitted the accused respondent. I have no reason to disagree with the finding of the acquittal recorded by the learned court below as it appears to be reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 22. It may be stated herein that in appeal against acquittal though powers of the High Court to reassess the evidence and to reach its own conclusion are as extensive as in an appeal against an order of conviction, yet as a rule of prudence, it should always give proper weight and consideration to the views of the trial court as to the credibility of the witness, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt and thus, High Court should not ordinarily disturb the order of acquittal. Therefore, this court does not want to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 4.6.1988 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar and this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 23. For the reasons indicated herein above, the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan fails and the same is hereby dismissed after confirming the judgment and order of acquittal dated 4.6.1988 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar. The accused respondents are on bail and need not surrender. Their bail bonds stand discharged.State Appeal Dismissed. *******