JUDGMENT 1. - The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 28.8.1987 passed by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Deeg, Bharatpur in Case No. 31/87 by which he has acquitted the accused respondent (Parvati Nandan) of the charges for the offence under Section 409 IPC. 2. The necessary facts giving rise to this appeal in brief are as follows : On dated 15.11.1976, an FIR Ex.P1 was lodged by Shri Moolchand Revenue Inspector Municipality, Kaman alleging that on 15.11.1976 at 7.30 A.M., he went to the check-post situated at Deeg Kaman and Nakedar Parvati Nandan (Accused respondent) was present there. He checked the cash. The accused respondent told that Rs. 2677.41 according to the record was there, out of which Rs. 196.25 were due against Sh. Kapoorchand Swaroop Chand and Rs. 44.50 were found in cash stating this that Rs. 2436.65 were taken away by thieves in the morning. Sh. Moolchand P.W.1 asked the Check-post 5 guard Sh. Gariba about this incident who refused this fact stating that no such incident of theft took place. As such, Parvati Nandan has committed breach of trust of Rs. 2436.66 and the report which he had lodged for theft was false. Upon the report a case under Section 409 IPC was registered against the accused respondent and investigation started. The police submitted a challan before the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Deeg for the offence under Section 409 IPC. 3. The learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate framed charges for the offence under Section 409 IPC. The charges were read over and explained to the accused respondent who pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. 4. 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. 5. After completing the trial, the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Deeg has sentenced the accused respondent through his judgment and order dated 28.8.1987 and acquitted the respondent of the charges framed against him by holding that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused respondent. 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order dated 28.8.1987 passed by the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Deeg, the State Government has preferred this appeal. 7. 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order dated 28.8.1987 passed by the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Deeg, the State Government has preferred this appeal. 7. 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. 8. The learned Public Prosecutor further contended that the learned trial court did not believe the statement of P.W.9 Moti Singh who was witness for recovery of the amount on the ground that recovery memo did not contain the signature of P.W.9 Moti Singh and P.W.8 Shri Rameshwar Dayal ASI who had done recovery proceedings. 9. The learned Public Prosecutor further contended that the learned trial court committed error of law in holding that the witnesses of recovery P.W.2 Inderlal Sharma and P.W.3 Gopal Prasad Gupta did not support the prosecution, but by reading their evidence it is clear that they supported the case of prosecution and moreover even if Motbir does not support the prosecution case, evidence of remaining prosecution witnesses cannot be discarded only on the ground that Motbir are not supporting the case. 10. The learned Public Prosecutor has also contended that the trial court has committed error of law in acquitting the accused respondent because it was the duty of the accused respondent to prove that he had not committed any criminal breach of trust because the plea which the accused took was that the aforesaid amount was taken away by thieves is not proved by any documentary evidence or oral evidence because the accused had lodged a FIR in this regard and a case under Section 394 IPC was registered, but after the investigation the police found it to be a false case and submitted final report and against which, the accused did not take any steps to file any complaint or protest petition. 11. Lastly he has concluded his arguments by stating that the trial court has committed an error of law in coming to the conclusion that the accused has not committed breach of trust. 12. On the other hand, Mr. 11. Lastly he has concluded his arguments by stating that the trial court has committed an error of law in coming to the conclusion that the accused has not committed breach of trust. 12. On the other hand, Mr. O.P. Agarwal, the learned counsel for the accused respondent has submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Munsif and Judicial magistrate, Ist Class, Deeg 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 him and thus no interference is called for in the impugned order and judgment. 13. It is also contended by Mr. Agarwal learned counsel for the accused respondent that the learned Magistrate has examined P.W.1 Moolchand Gupta whose statement is very much contradictory in chief and cross-examination and could not be believed. P.W.2 - Inder Lal Sharma, a practicing Advocate whose statement has recorded on 8.9.1978 and he stated in his statement that he did not know whether any note (or Money) was recovered from the accused respondent or not before him. P.W.3 Gopal Prasad Gupta has been declared hostile. P.W.4 Gariba whose statement is also contradictory. PW.5 Chotelal has also been declared hostile. P.W.6 Udai Ram, P.W.7 Rikab Chand Jain, P.W.8 Rameshwar Dayal, PW.9 Moti Singh were also given contradictory statements and the main two witnesses of prosecution P.W.8 Rameshwar Dayal P.W.9 Moti Singh have also been declared hostile. 14. The learned Magistrate has observed in his judgment that the independent witness P.W.3 Gopal Prasad Gupta (Head Master) has also declared hostile and PW.2 Inder Lal Sharma who is a lawyer who has denied that any rupees or notes have been recovered before him from the accused respondent. The learned Magistrate has further observed that the motbir in this case has declared hostile. The learned Magistrate has also relied upon the judgments reported in 1970 Cr.L.J. 1247, 1978 Cr.L.J 1329, 1972 Cr.L.J P1214, AIR 1986 SC 289 and AIR 1964 Patna p.324. 15. Ultimately, the learned counsel for the accused respondent submitted that in view of the decisions cited above and the arguments advanced before I this Court, the trial court has rightly acquitted the accused respondent. 16. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant State and the learned counsel for the accused respondent. 15. Ultimately, the learned counsel for the accused respondent submitted that in view of the decisions cited above and the arguments advanced before I this Court, the trial court has rightly acquitted the accused respondent. 16. 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 28.8.1987 passed by the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Deeg and I find that the learned Magistrate has given cogent reasons. for not relying upon the statement of prosecution witnesses. 17. This appeal has come up for hearing before this Court after expiry of a period of approximately 31 years from the date of occurrence. In my considered opinion, the reasonings given by the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class Deeg for not relying upon the statement of prosecution witnesses cannot be said to be erroneous one. 18. 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 409 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. 19. 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 28.8.1997 passed by the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Deeg and this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 20. Therefore, this court does not want to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal Dated 28.8.1997 passed by the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Deeg and this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 20. 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 28.8.1987 passed by the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Deeg. The accused respondent is on bail and need not surrender. The bail bonds stand discharged.State Appeal Dismissed.. *******