JUDGMENT N. ANANDA, J.—The State has filed this appeal against judgment of acquittal of respondent-accused (hereinafter referred to as accused), for an offence punishable under Section 409 I.P.C. 2. The charge framed by the trial Court reads thus: “That during the year 1995, for the period in between 1.9.1994 to 7.2.1995 you were entrusted the work of sale and stock transaction of the property belonging to the Karnataka State Seeds Corporation (Ltd.), Br. at Chintamani as a S.D.A. and intentionally missused an amount of Rs. 38,558.65 ps. for personal use and not depositing the said amount to the bank and also not accounted properly in the stock book in your capacity of as such a Public Servant and that you committed criminal breach of trust in respect of that property and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 403 of the IPC and within my cognizance.” 3. In order to bring home the guilt of accused the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 5 and produced documents as per Ex,P1 to P25. The accused did not lead the defence evidence, however, he has produced the copy of circular dated 27.8.1989 issued by the Managing Director of Karnataka State Seeds Corporation Ltd. (for short ‘KSSC Ltd.,’) 4. The learned trial Judge on hearing the learned counsel for parties and on appreciation of evidence has acquitted the accused by recording the following reasons: (i) The prosecution has failed to prove that the accused was entrusted with the stock of KSSC Ltd., Chintamani, (ii) The prosecution has failed to prove that the accused was entrusted with the duty of transacting business of KSSC Ltd., Chintamani viz., sale of seeds to farmers. 5. We have heard Sri Bhavani Singh-learned S.P.P, for the State and Sri. R.P. Somashekaraiah-learned counsel for accused. We have been taken through evidence and the impugned judgment. 6. It is needless to state that in order to bring home the guilt of accused for an offence punishable under Section 409 I.P.C., the prosecution has to prove the entrustment and misappropriation committed by the accused while discharging the duties entrusted to him as a public servant. 7. As could be seen from the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the accused is alleged to have misappropriated the sale proceeds of 25 Quintals of paddy seeds, which had been received in KSSC Ltd., at Chintamani from KSSC Ltd., at Kolar. 8. 7. As could be seen from the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the accused is alleged to have misappropriated the sale proceeds of 25 Quintals of paddy seeds, which had been received in KSSC Ltd., at Chintamani from KSSC Ltd., at Kolar. 8. P.W. 1-Shivaeaeda was working as a Assistant Manager and Internal Auditor in the head office at KSSC Ltd., Bangalore. He audited the accounts and verified the stock in KSSC Ltd., at Chintamani during the period 1.1.1994 to 31.1.1995. The accused being entrusted with the stock had sold paddy seeds and did not remit the proceeds to the bank. On consideration of the evidence of P.W. 1, we find that he had not produced any documentary evidence to show the receipt of consignment of 25 Quintals of paddy seeds so also entrustment of stock to the accused. P.W. 1 has deposed; that he had performed internal audit by referring to various bills mentioned therein. P.W. 1 has not deposed that the contents in documents in particular stock register, cash bills are in the handwriting of accused and signatures found therein are the signatures of accused. During cross-examination, P.W. 1 has deposed; that the Assistant Seeds Officer was in-charge of KSSC Ltd., at Chintamani. He was placing indent to KSSC Ltd., at Kolar. On such indent, seeds including paddy seeds were being consigned to KSSC Ltd., at Chintamani. It was the duty and responsibility of Assistant Seeds Officer to send the seeds under stock transfer note and it is his duty to send acknowledgement for having received the consignment. P.W. 1 has admitted that the cash book, cash bills, stock book do not bear the signatures of Assistant Seeds Officer. P.W. l has deposed that; on 1.9.1994, the Assistant Seeds Officer had entrusted the stock to the accused. P.W. 1 has admitted that such entrustment should be under a written document. P.W. 1 has admitted that he had given such written document to the police, however, we find such document was not tendered in evidence and it is also not available in the records. We find from the evidence of P.W. 1 that there was misappropriation in the sale proceeds, however, from the evidence of P.W. 1 it is possible to hold that on 1.9.1994, the Assistant Seeds Officer at Chintamani had entrusted the stock to the accused. We find from the evidence of P.W. 1 that there was misappropriation in the sale proceeds, however, from the evidence of P.W. 1 it is possible to hold that on 1.9.1994, the Assistant Seeds Officer at Chintamani had entrusted the stock to the accused. It is not possible to hold that during period between 1.9.1994 and 7.2.1995 the accused was transacting the business of KSSC Ltd., at Chintamani. 9. During the year 1994 to 1998, P.W. 2-Kenipanna was working as Assistant Seeds Officer. P.W. 2 has deposed; that on 18.1.1995, he had deputed P.W. S.K. Vijaya, Messenger of KSSC Ltd., Chintamani to bring 25 quintals of paddy seeds from KSSC Ltd., at Kolar to KSSC Ltd., at Chintamani. P.W. 2 has deposed that the said stock was transferred as per stock transport report No. 27289. During cross-examination, P.W. 2 has admitted that, after placing the indent by Assistant Seeds Officer, District Seeds Corporation Ltd., would send the stock to the concerned KSSC Ltd. P.W. 2 has admitted that he had not obtained any document from the accused to show that he had entrusted the stock of 25 Quintals of paddy seeds to the accused. P.W. 2 has not deposed that the accused had sold the stock under various receipts and bills produced before the Court and marked as Exs. P8 to P11, P.W. 2 has not deposed about copies of cash bills found in bill book as per Ex. P4 and copies of cash bills as per Ex. P4 (1) to EX.P.4 (3) bear the signatures of the accused. P.W. 2 has not deposed that contents of receipts marked as per Ex. P5(1) to Ex. P5(17) are in the handwriting of the accused. P.W. 2 has not deposed that the accused had written the cash bills. P.W. 2 has not deposed that the signatures found in the stock register are the signatures of accused. 10. P.W. 8-Smt. K. Vijaya was working as a Messenger. P.W. 3 has deposed that on 18.1.1995, as instructed by P.W. 2 she had brought 25 Quintals of paddy seeds and delivered the same to the accused. During cross-examination, P.W. 3 has admitted that the accused had not given any written acknowledgement for having received the stock of 25 Quintals of paddy seeds. P.W. 3 has deposed that on 18.1.1995, as instructed by P.W. 2 she had brought 25 Quintals of paddy seeds and delivered the same to the accused. During cross-examination, P.W. 3 has admitted that the accused had not given any written acknowledgement for having received the stock of 25 Quintals of paddy seeds. P.W. 3 further admitted that, she was working as a Messenger and she was not aware of the transactions of KSSC Ltd., Chintamani, P.W. 3 was not aware of the books maintained in KSSC Ltd., Chintamani. P.W. 3 has given an inconsistent version. P.W. 3 has deposed; that as instructed by the central office 25 Quintals of paddy seeds was entrusted to the store keeper. 11. At the relevant time, P.W. 4-M. Krishnappa was working as a P.S.I. at Chintaniani Town Police Station. P.W. 4 has deposed about investigation of the case. The evidence given by P.W. 4 regarding investigation made by him is based upon the internal audit report submitted by P.W. 1. P.W. 4 has admitted that, during investigation, though he had obtained document regarding physical entrustment of stock to the accused, however, he had not produced the said document. P.W. 4 had not obtained any document/order to show that the stock was entrusted by the Assistant Seeds Officer to the accused. P.W. 4 has made a categorical admission that he had not collected any documentary evidence to prove that from 1.9.1994 to 7.2.1995, the accused was in-charge of stocks and sales of KSSC Ltd., at Chintamani. 12. The evidence of P.W. 5—S. Murigappa relates to further investigation. 13. Thus, on careful consideration of evidence of P.W. 1 to P.W. 5 and documentary evidence, we find that the prosecution has failed to prove the entrustment of 25 Quintals of paddy seeds to the accused on 18.1.1995. The prosecution has failed to prove that during period between 1.9.1994 and 7.2.1995, the accused was in-charge of stock and sales of KSSC Ltd., Chintamani. Though the prosecution has relied on number of documents in particular, the bill book, cash receipt book and extraction of cash register, none of the prosecution witnesses has deposed that the contents of these documents are in the handwriting of the accused and the accused had signed the cash bills or cash receipts. Though the prosecution has relied on number of documents in particular, the bill book, cash receipt book and extraction of cash register, none of the prosecution witnesses has deposed that the contents of these documents are in the handwriting of the accused and the accused had signed the cash bills or cash receipts. On the other hand, as per circular dated 27.3.1989 issued by KSSC Ltd., Corporate Office, Bangalore, the officers in-charge of KSSC Ltd., in Districts and Taluks are made responsible and accountable for deficiency of stock and other financial irregularities if any, during sale transactions of KSSC Ltd. 14. Therefore, we hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the essential ingredients of an offence punishable under Section 409 I.P.C. viz., entrustment of stock and authorisation to the accused to transact the business of KSSC Ltd., at Chintamani. 15. The learned trial Judge on appreciation of evidence had acquitted the accused. On reconsideration of the evidence and impugned judgment, we do not find any reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment. 16. In the result, we pass the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed.