JUDGMENT 1. Prosecution case initiated on written application of the informant Sudarshan Ram, Sub Postmaster of Khushrupur Post Office, in brief, is that on 10.4.1999 he was on duty and at about 5.00 PM he closed the Post Office after accounting and sending the Dak. Post Office was closed on next day which was Sunday. On 12.4.1999 he came to Post Office, found plank of western portion from adjacent to residential house broken. Iron chest of the Post Office was also broken. Rs. 2.05 lac kept in chest was missing. Articles of the Post Office were found scattered. 2. The trial commenced and ended in acquittal to the respondents by the impugned judgment dated 20.12.2000, validity of which has been questioned through filing this appeal by the State Govt. 3. It is made clear that respondents were not named in the F.I.R. as having any involvement in the incident rather their involvement appeared in course of investigation on the basis of their confession recorded through Exhibits 1 and 2. Prosecution case on this point is that the Senior Superintendent of Post Office came from Patna along with P.Ws.1 and 5. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 were taken into confidence then both made same confession which only was recorded in Exhibits 1 and 2. Senior Superintendent of Post Office is not examined in the case rather P.Ws 1 and 5 were examined who were accompanying him. 4. Prosecution case is not believed including confession said to be made and recorded on the ground that same were not voluntary one and there was contradiction in between the statement of P.Ws 1 and 5 either in whose presence confession was made or recorded. There could be some occasion to go through the statement of P.Ws 1 and 5 along with others on this point but one thing more appears in the case that Respondent nos. 1 and 2 were never queried about the confession if voluntary was made on their behalf. 5. It is mandatory in trial to question the accused general on the case enabling him personally to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. 6. Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure makes this provision mandatory which runs as follows: “313. 1 and 2 were never queried about the confession if voluntary was made on their behalf. 5. It is mandatory in trial to question the accused general on the case enabling him personally to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. 6. Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure makes this provision mandatory which runs as follows: “313. (1) In every inquiry or trial, for the purpose of enabling the accused personally to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, the Court- (a) may at any stage, without previously warning the accused, put such questions to him as the Court considers necessary; (b) shall, after the witnesses for the prosecution have been examined and before he is called on for his defence, question him general on the case: Provided that in a summons-case, where the Court has dispensed with personal attendance of the accused, it may also dispense with his examination under clause (b). (2) No oath shall be administered to the accused when he is examined under sub-section (1). (3) The accused shall not render himself liable to punishment by refusing to answer such questions, or by giving false answers to them. (4) The answers given by the accused may be taken into consideration in such inquiry or trial, and put in evidence for or against him in any other inquiry into, or trial for, any other offence which such answers may tend to show he has committed.” Sub-section (1) (b) of section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is relevant. 7. In this case the only evidence is confession made by accused Respondents that has been not put before the accused persons to explain if the same was voluntary made by them. 8. Thus, I find no mistake committed by the trial court or material which can be based to reverse the acquittal of respondents recorded by the trial court in its judgment dated 20.12.2000. 9. The Govt. Appeal is accordingly, dismissed.