JUDGMENT : B.K. Patel, J. - This appeal is filed at the instance of State against the judgment and order dated 03.11.1993 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhawanipatna in G.R. Case No. 392 of 1990 (T.R. No. 113 of 1993) acquitting the accused-Respondent of the charge u/s 409 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the I.P.C.'). 2. As it appears from the charge framed against the accused Respondent, the alleged occurrence took place on 30.06.1990. The Respondent was working as Cashier in the District Agriculture Office, Bhawanipatna during the period of occurrence. Prosecution case, in nut shell, is that on 10.07.1990 informant P.W.14, who was working as the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Kalahandi, Bhawanipatna, received information from P.W.5 who was working as District Agriculture Officer-in-Charge, Bhawanipatna that the Respondent had misappropriated Government cash for which salary of. some of the employees for the month of June, 1990 could not be disbursed. P.W.14 made inquiry and physical verification of cash on 17.07.1990 upon which shortage of cash to the tune of Rs. 43,580/ - was detected. On the basis of F.I.R. Ext.8 lodged by P.W.14 at Town Police Station, Bhawanipatna, case was registered and P.W.16, Sub-Inspector of Police was entrusted with the investigation. In course of investigation witnesses were examined and seizures were affected. On completion investigation, charge- sheet was submitted against the Respondent for commission of offence u/s 409 of the I.P.C. 3. The Respondent took the plea of denial. 4. Prosecution in order to prove the charge examined sixteen witnesses and relied upon documents marked Exts.1 to 14. P.Ws.15 and 16 are police officers who were associated with the investigation. P.Ws.1 to 13 were officers and employees in the office of District Agriculture Office. P.W.8 was the District Agriculture Officer till 29.06.1990 when P.W.5 the Assistant Officer took charge from him. P.W.14 the informant has already been introduced. Documents relied upon by the prosecution included seizure lists, F.I.R. Ext.8, P.W.14's inquiry report Ext.9 and audit report Ext.14. No defence evidence was adduced. 5. Learned Counsel for the State, in assailing the impugned judgment, contended that the trial Court, instead of only finding contradictions and inconsistencies appearing in the evidence of witnesses including the informant, should have held on the basis of conspectus of oral evidence supported by inquiry report Ext.9 and audit report Ext.14 that the Respondent committed criminal breach of trust and misappropriated of Rs. 43, 935/ -. 6. In reply, learned Counsel for the Respondent strenuously contended that there is no evidence whatsoever indicating entrustment of any Government amount to the Respondent. It was further contended that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is too sketchy, inconsistent and incoherent to provide for any basis to conclude that any amount was ever misappropriated. 7. Having carefully examined the evidence adduced before the trial Court as well as the reasons assigned by the trial Court to hold that the prosecution has failed to prove charge against the Respondent, it is found that evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, 6, 7 and 9 to 13 is of no consequence to the prosecution. Their evidence did not incriminate the Respondent in any manner. P.W.1 a Senior Clerk, P.W.2 a Typist and P.W.4 a Senior Clerk deposed that they had no knowledge that the Respondent had misappropriated any amount. P.W.3 a Senior Clerk testified that he did not know anything about the case. P.W.6 the Head Clerk was only a witness to seizure of audit report Ext.14. P.Ws.7 and 12 the Junior Agriculture Officers and P.W.9 a Junior Clerk si(sic) alleged that they had not received their salaries for the month of June 1990. P.W.7 deposed that he told P.W.5 regarding non-receipt of salary and he was told that he would be paid the salary after bill was drawn. P.W.12 testified that he did not get salary because there was a farewell and that he was not aware about the occurrence. P.W.8 was the District Agriculture Officer, Bhawanipatna till 29.06.1990. Testifying to have handed over cash and bank drafts to P.W.5 on that date, he deposed that he did not know about the case. Also, P.W.8 admitted to have received the salary for the month of June 1990 on 30.06.1990. P.W.9 a Junior Clerk also alleged that he did not get his salary for the month of June, 1990 but deposed in cross-examination that P.W.14 had come for enquiry in the month of July 1990 but no complaint was made by them before him regarding non-receipt of salary. P.W.10 a Senior Clerk deposed that he had no personal knowledge about the case. In his cross-examination he deposed that on 27.07.1990 he took charge of cash. He expressed his inability to say about the shortage of amount from the date of taking charge. P.W.10 a Senior Clerk deposed that he had no personal knowledge about the case. In his cross-examination he deposed that on 27.07.1990 he took charge of cash. He expressed his inability to say about the shortage of amount from the date of taking charge. It was elicited in his cross-examination that no cash could be taken out of the office chest without direction or knowledge of the District Agriculture Officer and that as soon as cash was received for disbursement of salaries, the District Agriculture Officer was informed, as per his direction salaries were disbursed and balance amount was kept in the chest. P.W.11 a Senior Assistant, kept in charge of preparing pay bills, was also a witness to seizure only. P.W.13 a Junior Assistant deposed that he did not know anything about the case. 8. P.W.14 the informant deposed that on 10.07.1990 he received information from P.W.5 that the Respondent had misappropriated Government cash as a result of which there was lot of noise by the office staff to get their salaries for the month of June 1990. Thereafter he proceeded to testify that on 17.07.1990 official information was sent by P.W.5 for physical verification of cash as the Respondent was avoiding to reconcile the cash upon which he went to the District Agriculture Office and verified the cash book and directed the Respondent to produce the records relating to cash. The Respondent told him that he had not made the cash book up-to-date and wanted time to update the same. On being asked by P.W.14, the cash book was updated by the Respondent. P.W.14 alleged that on physical verification of cash with records he found that there was shortage of cash of Rs. 43,580/ - which included permanent advance amount of Rs. 50/ -. Thereafter he reported the matter to and solicited advice from the Director of Agriculture. As per the direction of Joint Director Agriculture, P.W.14 suspended the Respondent and lodged F.I.R. Ext.14. As the Investigating Officer wanted a fresh audit to be made, P.W.14 got the accounts re-audited and received audit report Ext.9. He alleged that about 23 to 24 officers had not received salary for the month of June, 1990. P.W.14 also testified that he himself had conducted enquiry and submitted enquiry report Ext.9. As the Investigating Officer wanted a fresh audit to be made, P.W.14 got the accounts re-audited and received audit report Ext.9. He alleged that about 23 to 24 officers had not received salary for the month of June, 1990. P.W.14 also testified that he himself had conducted enquiry and submitted enquiry report Ext.9. In course of cross-examination P.W.14 failed to explain the reasons for delay in lodging the F.I.R. till 10.08.1990, though he stated to have detected shortage of cash in course of verification on 17.07.1990 and received instruction to lodge F.I.R. within three weeks thereafter. He also admitted in his cross-examination that prior to lodging of F.I.R. he had made a reference regarding the occurrence to the Inspector-in-charge of the Police Station. Neither the earlier reference is available on record nor any explanation is forthcoming as to why on the basis of the earlier reference case was not registered. Though in the F.I.R. Ext.8 it has been alleged that apart from Rs. 43935/ - misappropriated by the Respondent while encashing bills from the bank on 30.06.1990, some amount had also been misappropriated on 03.07.1990, P.W.14 was constrained to admit in his cross-examination that the sentence in the F.I.R. to the effect that some amount was misappropriated by the Respondent on 03.07.1990 was unwarranted. He expressed his inability to say what was the opening balance of cash in the iron chest and cash book entry maintained by the Respondent as on 29.06.1990 as well as what was the closing and opening balance of cash on 30.06.1990. He admitted that he had not mentioned the opening and closing balance of 29.06.1990 and 30.06.1990 in the enquiry report Ext.9. P.W.14 further admitted that his enquiry report did not show how the shortage of Rs. 43,985/ - had arisen and that he had not given the details of advances paid to different persons. He expressed his inability to say as to whether P.W.8 had paid advances to the tune of Rs. 1,18,063/ -. He explained that taking into account the need, the Drawing and Disbursing Officer took risk and spent balance amount in hand without prior sanction. Thus, the evidence of P.W.14 is not only vague but also the enquiry report appears to have been made without reference to relevant facts. P.W.5 who took over as District Agriculture Officer on 29.6.1990 from P.W.8 deposed that the Respondent was on leave. Thus, the evidence of P.W.14 is not only vague but also the enquiry report appears to have been made without reference to relevant facts. P.W.5 who took over as District Agriculture Officer on 29.6.1990 from P.W.8 deposed that the Respondent was on leave. As some of the staff had not received salary, he recalled the Respondent and asked him to submit accounts. However, the Respondent having failed to update the accounts, P.W.5 reported the matter to P.W.14 on 17.7.1990. On P.W.14's direction the Respondent and other employees updated and submitted the accounts, upon which shortage of cash amounting to Rs. 43,000 and odd was detected. P.W.5 also alleged that on the date of taking charge he paid Rs. 10,000/- to the Respondent for payment. Such an assertion is not acceptable in view of the fact that according to P.W.5 the Respondent was on leave on that date and also it has been brought out in evidence that P.W.5 had not stated before the Investigating Police Officer P.W.16 that he had paid Rs. 10,000/- to the Respondent for payment, or that some of the staff had not received salary. Though it was alleged that the amount misappropriated by the Respondent was drawn by him from the bank for payment of salary, it was categorically stated by P.W.5 in course of cross-examination that P.W.11, Bill Clerk and some other brought cash from the bank. It was also admitted by him that he had taken charge of cash as per Cash Book as on the date of taking of charge. It is in evidence that the office chest had double lock system and one of the keys was kept with the District Agriculture Officer without whose consent the chest could not be opened. P.W.8 categorically admitted that the Cashier alone could not open the chest. P.W.5 explained in cross-examination that he had paid Rs. 10,000/- to the Respondent for payment from the G.P.F. to some of the employees. In this context, it is pertinent to note that neither in the F.I.R. nor in course of investigation it was alleged that the Respondent had misappropriated from the G.P.F. amount. P.W.5 admitted that none complained before him to have not received any amount from the G.P.F. Thus, evidence of P.W.5 negated the allegation of entrustment of amount drawn from the bank for payment towards salary to the Respondent. P.W.5 admitted that none complained before him to have not received any amount from the G.P.F. Thus, evidence of P.W.5 negated the allegation of entrustment of amount drawn from the bank for payment towards salary to the Respondent. Rather, his evidence revealed that P.W.11 and others brought the amount from the bank. P.W.8 deposed to have handed over cash, advance and bank drafts to P.W.5 on 29.6.1990. He categorically stated that he did not know about the case. In cross-examination P.W.8 admitted that he had received salary for the month of June, 1990 and that he had handed over both the keys of the office chest to P.W.5. He too admitted that without consent of District Agriculture Officer the office chest could not be opened. This being the nature of testimonies of the three material witnesses P.Ws.5, 8 and 11, there appears no infirmity in the finding that the prosecution miserably failed to prove entrustment and misappropriation of any amount by the Respondent. In the absence of substantive evidence, audit report by itself cannot form a basis for any finding. Evidence of two Investigating Police Officers does not incriminate the Respondent in any manner. Rather, it appears from the evidence of P.W.16 that F.I.R. Ext.8 was in continuation of an earlier letter dated 23.7.1990. Earlier report has not been brought on record. There is no explanation for not lodging F.I.R. soon after grievance was raised by the employees to have not received the salary. Learned trial Court has rightly taken note of the inconsistencies referred to above to conclude that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charge framed against the Respondent. The impugned judgment is based on sound reasons upon reference to the evidence before it. Therefore, there is no justification to interfere with the impugned judgment. 9. In the result, the Government appeal is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed