Judgment Jawad Rahim, J. 1. State is in appeal against acquittal of the respondents for the offence punishable under Section 380, IPC 2. Heard Sri Raja Subrahmanya Bhat, learned HCGP and the learned Counsel for the respondents. 3. Prosecution case is accused-Ninappa and Eranna, respondents in this appeal were employed on temporary basis by the Forest Department to work under PW1 K.R. Parameshwara Shetty, Forest Officer. They were posted at Turuvekere Taluk. They worked for over 10 years on daily wages. 4. On 12.11.2000, PW1-Parameshwara Shetty found polythene bags stored in the room were less compared to the stock. On suspicion, he enquired from the respondents-accused whose explanation was not satisfactory. On 16.11.2000, lie lodged report regarding theft of polythene bags and on the basis of it, investigation commenced. During investigation, it was found respondents had sold polythene bags to some person at Mayasandra Gujari and over-sacks to one Somashekar. After seizing the bags and over-sacks, PW1 was summoned by the police and he identified the same as belonging to the Forest Department. On the basis of it, accused were arrested and put to trial. 5. During trial, prosecution has examined in all 11 witnesses and relied on 9 documents and 4 material objects. 6. It is material to note that the stock of polythene bags and over-sacks bags was in the custody of PW1 from 18.1.1999. As the officer-in-charge, he was required to maintain a register about Government property. He had not maintained any register, nor there was any material produced to show the number of polythene bags and over-sacks bags in stock available in the office. The complaint reveals he (sic) suspected theft, finding the bags less in number, but no material was produced to show how many bags were in stock and how many were stolen. He tendered evidence as PW1, but the learned trial Judge (sic) his evidence did not establish overt acts of the accused. It was proved by the accused that PW1 was the custodian and had not kept the premises locked. Office was accessible to five more employees of the Forest Department and there was no investigation in this regard. Lastly, it was noticed from 1999 to 2000, PW1 did not record how many polythene bags were used and how much was the stock left. 7. Office was accessible to five more employees of the Forest Department and there was no investigation in this regard. Lastly, it was noticed from 1999 to 2000, PW1 did not record how many polythene bags were used and how much was the stock left. 7. Recovery was also disbelieved because seizure mahazar did not show the weight of the bags or over-sacks bags. PW6 is said to be the receiver of stolen property. i.e. over-sacks bags, but he has spoken to the fact that 3-4 years prior to his evidence, he received 1,200 over-sacks bags from the accused and after 20 days, police seized the same from him. Having said that, he purchased the bags at Rs.1/-each, he says he gave only Rs.800/-to the accused for 1,200 bags. Therefore, the learned trial Judge disbelieved his statement also. 8. PW4 is a witness who is said to have received the plastic bags. He supported the prosecution case saying accused sold him 4 bundles of plastic bags and the total weight was 80 kgs. One month later it was seized. This evidence would only show that the property was purchased by PW4 and PW6. There is no proof the said articles were the same which was in the custody of PW1Parameshwara Shetty. 9. Be that as it may, in the absence of material evidence about what was the stock and loss, merely on the basis of the statement of PW4 and PW6, it is difficult to hold respondents-accused had committed theft of the property in question. The Trial Court has found evidence insufficient to prove the guilt and has rightly acquitted them. 10. I find no reason to interfere with the judgment impugned. It is confirmed. Accordingly, the appeal fails.