JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. The present appeal is maintained by the appellant-State of Himachal Pradesh against the judgment of acquittal of the accused in a case under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba, District Chamba, dated 17.12.2009, in Criminal Case No.429-I/05/2000/187-II/05/2000. 2. Briefly stating the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that accused/respondent (hereinafter referred to as accused) was working as Sub Inspector in Food and Civil Supply Office Chamba, District Chamba. On 2.6.1984, the accused was entrusted to control the charge of Tundah, Durgathi and Runukothi Food grains godown in District Chamba. As per the prosecution story, charge was duly handed over to the accused and had received the balance wheat which was lying in the said godown of department pertaining to the year 1984-85. Charge of godown of Tundah was handed over to the accused on 8.6.1984 by Shri Rakesh Kumar, Inspector Food and Civil Supply department at Holi. At the time of receiving the charge on 8.6.1984, there was 117 Qt. 79 K.G 500 grams wheat in the stock, in the godown of Tundah. In the intervening period 6/84 to 3/85, the accused had received 411 Qt. 44 K.G wheat for selling and distributing, therefore, total 529 Qt. 23 K.G 500 grams wheat was in the stock up to said period. Out of entire stock, 404 Qt. wheat was sold by accused up to 31.3.1985 and found that 125 Qt. 23 K.G 500 grams wheat was lying in the stock. As per entry, in the stock for the financial year 1985-86, 125 Qt. 23 K.G 500 grams wheat was in the balance of the said godown and accused received 340 Qt. 25 K.G 500 grams wheat in the said godown. On physical checking, an excess wheat of 16 K.G 500 gram was found in the stock of said godown. Therefore, in the stock total balance of wheat was 465 Qt. 68 K.G 500 grams. Out of said stock, accused had sold 440 Qt. plus 15 Qt. i.e. total 555 Qt. wheat and was left with 10 Qt. 68 K.G 500 grams wheat on 31.3.1986, as per the entries in the stock register. 3. Further the case of the prosecution is that on 6.3.1986, the accused received 420 Qt. 68 K.G 500 grams. Out of said stock, accused had sold 440 Qt. plus 15 Qt. i.e. total 555 Qt. wheat and was left with 10 Qt. 68 K.G 500 grams wheat on 31.3.1986, as per the entries in the stock register. 3. Further the case of the prosecution is that on 6.3.1986, the accused received 420 Qt. 60 K.G. 500 grams wheat from Contractor, Ram Krishan, who was deployed by the department to carry the wheat and hand over to the said godown. After receiving the same 420 Qt. 60 K.G 500 grams wheat by the accused, he did not enter the same in the stock register and as per entry in the stock register on 31.3.1986, he had shown only 10 Qt. 68 K.G. 500 grams wheat in his stock. In the year 1986-87, after showing the wrong balance of 10 Qt. 68 K.G 500 grams wheat, on 3.6.1986 received 178 Qt. 67 K.G wheat from Shri Rishi Ram, Contractor, deployed by the department to carry and hand over the wheat to the accused. After receiving the wheat accused issued the receipt of receival to said Contractor on 16.12.1986. The accused, instead of entering 178 Qt. 67 K.G. wheat in the stock register, intentionally with object to cheat the department, entered 40 Qt. wheat in the stock register and remaining 138 Qt. 67 K.G. wheat was misappropriated by him. The value of the said wheat was Rs.260/- per Qt., on calculating at this rate, it comes out to Rs.36,054.20/- and the said amount is alleged to be misappropriated by the accused. It is alleged that in the stock register, the accused had wrongly mentioned 50 Qt. 68 K.G 500 grams wheat as a balance lying with him at Tundah godown, out of which, he had sold/distributed 20 Qt. wheat and as per balance on 31.5.1986, 30 Qt. 68 K.G 500, was lying balance in the said register. As per voucher No.2, dated 23.6.1986, Rs.2100/-, sale proceed of 15 Qt. wheat was deposited by the accused, which amount was less then actual sale proceed of said 15 Qt. of wheat and Rs.336/- were misappropriated by the accused. As per the stock 15 Qt. 68 K.G 500, was lying balance in the said register. As per voucher No.2, dated 23.6.1986, Rs.2100/-, sale proceed of 15 Qt. wheat was deposited by the accused, which amount was less then actual sale proceed of said 15 Qt. of wheat and Rs.336/- were misappropriated by the accused. As per the stock 15 Qt. 68 K.G 500 grams wheat was lying in the godown of Tundah to which the accused deployed by the department, but on 5.6.1986, at the time of giving charge, vide letter No.FDS(B)-2-ESTT-86/3617-19 dated 4.6.1986, there was zero stock which was handed over by the accused to Mohinder Singh, Inspector Food and Civil Supply Department, Bharmour. The accused has misappropriated 15 Qt. 68 K.G. 500 grams wheat, which on calculating at the rate of Rs.260/- per Qt, comes out to Rs.4,078.10/- and the said amount was also misappropriated by the accused in the year 1986 relating to Tundah godown. It is further alleged that during the year 1984 to 1986, accused misappropriated the wheat and its sale proceed. Accused had received 420 Qt. 60 K.G 500 grams wheat at the rate of Rs.264.25/- per Qt. from contractor Ram Krishan which he had misappropriated, which on calculating comes out to Rs.1,11,144.85/-. Similarly, the accused had received 138 Qt. 67 K.G wheat from Rishi Ram, contractor, the value of the said wheat was Rs.260/- per Qt, on calculating the said wheat, the sale proceed thereof comes out to Rs.36,054.20/- and accused misappropriated the said amount. Accused deposited the sale proceed of 15 Qt. wheat in treasury, vide voucher No.2 dated 2.7.1986, which is Rs.336/- less than the actual sale price and the said amount has been misappropriated by him. Further, 15 Qt. 68 K.G 500 gram was found less at the time of handing over the charge to Mohinder Chand, value of the said wheat was Rs. 260/- per Qt. which comes to Rs.4,078.10/- and the said amount had been misappropriated by the accused. Further, during the period from 6/1984 to 6/1986 the accused had misappropriated 574 Qt. 96 K.G wheat from Tundah godown whose sale proceed was Rs.1,51,613.15/-. Therefore, case of the prosecution is that the accused has misappropriated a sum of Rs.1,51,613.15/- and has committed the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Further, during the period from 6/1984 to 6/1986 the accused had misappropriated 574 Qt. 96 K.G wheat from Tundah godown whose sale proceed was Rs.1,51,613.15/-. Therefore, case of the prosecution is that the accused has misappropriated a sum of Rs.1,51,613.15/- and has committed the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined as many as 22 witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, wherein he has denied the prosecution case and claimed innocence. No defence evidence was led by the accused. 5. We have heard learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant/State and learned defence counsel for the respondent/accused. 6. To appreciate the arguments of learned Additional Advocate General and learned defence counsel, this Court has gone through the record in detail and has minutely scrutinized the statements of the prosecution witnesses. 7. PW-1, Rattan Chand, has deposed that accused was deployed to the godown of Runukothi, Durgathi and Tundah, belonging to Food and Civil Supply Department and the said godowns were mainly received wheat from District Chamba godown. As per the version of complainant, he found that, in stock the accused had shown less wheat in comparison to actual wheat supplied to him to which he verbally could not give the details. In examination-in-chief, the deposition of this witness Rattan Chand/PW-1 appears to be on verbal entrustment of the wheat and he failed to depose, in fact, how much wheat was supplied to the said accused during his tenure as In charge, in the said godowns. He has stated that the accused misappropriated the sale proceed and the wheat, due to this fact, he lodged an FIR by writing a complainant Ex.PW1/A. In written complaint, it was alleged that time to time the accused had misappropriated the wheat, but while appearing as a witness, he did not support any word to show the entrustment of the wheat. Case of the prosecution as well as complainant depends upon the stock register, but the said register was not produced by the prosecution on record. In absence of such register and its entries, it cannot be held as to how much wheat was entrusted to the accused and in what manner he wrongly maintained the false record in his office. Case of the prosecution as well as complainant depends upon the stock register, but the said register was not produced by the prosecution on record. In absence of such register and its entries, it cannot be held as to how much wheat was entrusted to the accused and in what manner he wrongly maintained the false record in his office. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he could not tell that how much wheat was supplied to the accused and for which period. He has further admitted that the wheat which was supplied from Chamba Office has been entered in the stock register at Chamba and after the supply of said food grains, it has to be entered in the stock register of the receiving depot. After going through the entire case of the prosecution, as the record of stock register of Chamba or alleged depots were not produced, gives inference that prosecution has failed to prove as to how much wheat was actually supplied to the accused from time to time from main depot at Chamba to godowns, to which the accused was deployed. In his cross-examination, PW-1 has admitted that all the godowns were under his control, but personally, he did not check any godowns. In absence of any checking of the godown by PW-1, it cannot be held that this witness has deposed rightly to the stock issued from Chamba to godown, where the accused was posted. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that he had not seen any stock register. 8. PW-12 Mohinder Chand, in examination-in-chief, has deposed that on 4.6.1986, on the written instructions of District Food & Supplies Controller, he and Krishan Dev/PW-22 went to take the charge of godowns those had to be physically verified by Krishan Dev/PW-22, as per stock register maintained by the accused. He has stated that as per stock register of Durgathi godown, on 5.6.1986, 40 Qt. 51 K.G 500 grams wheat was shown as balance. In the entire examination-in-chief, he does not support the case of prosecution, as per complaint Ex.PW1/A. He simply stated that on the spot, 1 Qt. 51 K.G 500 grams wheat was found missing and thereafter Shri Krishan Dev physically verified the stock register and prepared the report. 51 K.G 500 grams wheat was shown as balance. In the entire examination-in-chief, he does not support the case of prosecution, as per complaint Ex.PW1/A. He simply stated that on the spot, 1 Qt. 51 K.G 500 grams wheat was found missing and thereafter Shri Krishan Dev physically verified the stock register and prepared the report. He has stated that Krishan Dev by his writing passed the order in the register for less stock of wheat as the accused had not deposited the sale proceed thereof. After going through the entire examination-in-chief, it is found that he has failed to depose as to how much stock was less in each godowns. In examination-in-chief, he has stated that the accused was given the charge of all the stocks at one time. Again deposed that on 7.6.1986, they returned and requested the accused to give charge of Tundah, but he has stated that he would give the charge after two holidays and went again to Durgathi depot on 10.6.1986, but the accused did not appear despite having been waited for. While going through such examination-in-chief, it is not clear how the prosecution connects the accused with the alleged entrustment of wheat as per story of the prosecution. This witness in examination-in-chief categorically admitted that copies of the stock register were not placed on record. He was unable to tell whether the sale proceed of 39 Qt. wheat was deposited by the accused or not and admitted that he did not lodge the FIR. Statement of PW-12/Mahinder Chand, is not convincing to convict the accused for the offence of breach of trust or cheating as he did not disclose the actual act of entrustment or misappropriation. This witness, on the one hand, stated the case of department and on the other hand, failed to disclose the actual stock. He has admitted that stock register was not produced, but he had seen it. It was the duty of the prosecution to prove entrustment, but while going through the entire deposition of PW-5/Madan Lal, there is nothing by which it can be held as to how much wheat from time to time was entrusted to the accused, out of which the accused had misappropriated. 9. PW-18/Krishan Dev, in examination-in-chief, has stated that he went to see the stock of godowns of village Durgathi, Tundah and Runukothi. 9. PW-18/Krishan Dev, in examination-in-chief, has stated that he went to see the stock of godowns of village Durgathi, Tundah and Runukothi. He has stated that he was ordered to hand over the charge of said godown to witness Mahinder Chand/PW-12 and Satya Prakash/PW-8. In compliance of the order passed by District Food & Supplies Controller, Chamba, dated 5.6.1986, he verified the stock of Durgathi godown in the presence of the accused and as per actual stock on 5.6.1986, opening balance of wheat was 40 Qt. 51 K.G 500 grams, out of which 39 Qt. was sold to depot holders and on the spot, he found 1 Qt. 51 K.G 500 grams wheat was lying. In absence of documentary record, prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused with the help of the statement of Krishan Dev. In further examination-in-chief, he has stated that on 7.6.1986, he directed the accused and Satya Prakash to show the accounts of Runukothi godown due to the reason that the accused, in his statement, has shown zero balance in the said godown. He has stated that thereafter the accused was told to show the stock of godown at Tundah on 8.6.1986, but he refused by stating that 8th and 9th June, 1986 were holidays. The accused was asked to accompany them to Tunda on 10.6.1986, but he did not come back after holidays. So, on 28.10.1986, in the absence of the accused, Mahinder Chand went to Tundah godown and verified the stock. He has stated that there should have been 30 Qt. 7 K.G wheat in the balance of stock register, but physically there was Nil wheat at the said godown. The entire examination-in-chief does not disclose how much wheat from time to time was received by the accused and how it was distributed. This witness did not depose that he had actually verified the stock register and admitted that the said stock register was not produced before the learned Court, so it is not clear how much wheat was actually entrusted to the accused from main godown Chamba for the godowns managed by the accused. This witness, in cross-examination, categorically admitted that he did not see the actual stock register. He has failed to depose whether District Food & Supplies Controller, was also suspended due to this wheat scam or not. This witness, in cross-examination, categorically admitted that he did not see the actual stock register. He has failed to depose whether District Food & Supplies Controller, was also suspended due to this wheat scam or not. He has admitted that he did not depose before the police that the accused has misappropriated the wheat or its sale proceed and admitted that he cannot tell how the accused had misappropriated the wheat in the said scam. He has stated that verification report to District Food & Supplies Controller, Chamba, was not shown to him at the time of his statement. So, the prosecution has failed to prove the necessary entrustment to the accused or as to how much actual wheat was possessed by the accused in the godowns of Durgathi, Tundah and Runukothi. Statement of PW-18/Krishan Dev is not convincing, so, it can be held that the accused had misappropriated the wheat of Food and Civil Supply Department. 10. The deposition of PW-1/Rattan Chand, PW-12/Mahinder Chand and PW-18/Krishan Dev, are not convincing and so prosecution has failed to prove the entrustment of the wheat and has failed to prove the actual stock. The prosecution has failed to prove the alleged misappropriation of wheat and preparation of forged record by the accused to commit the offence of cheating. It is upon the prosecution to prove the actual entrustment and its distribution by the help of stock register. Therefore, the accused is entitled to get the benefit of doubt and accordingly, benefit of doubt is granted to the accused. It is apparent from the perusal of record that neither the stock register was produced nor it was taken into possession by the prosecution for the reason best known to it. 11. PW-7/Surinder Kumar has admitted in his cross-examination that the said documents narrated in Ex.PW7/A, are photocopies and the originals were not found in the case file. The statement of this witness does not give any help to the prosecution to prove the alleged act of entrustment and further, the prosecution has failed to produce the original record. 12. The net result of the above discussion is that neither the entrustment of the wheat to the accused nor the act of deceiving any person by the accused is proved on record beyond reasonable doubt. 13. 12. The net result of the above discussion is that neither the entrustment of the wheat to the accused nor the act of deceiving any person by the accused is proved on record beyond reasonable doubt. 13. It has been held in K. Prakashan vs. P.K. Surenderan (2008) 1 SCC 258 , that when two views are possible, appellate Court should not reverse the judgment of acquittal merely because the other view was possible. When judgment of trial Court was neither perverse, nor suffered from any legal infirmity or non consideration/mis-appreciation of evidence on record, reversal thereof by High Court was not justified. 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in T. Subramanian vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2006) 1 SCC 401 , has held that where two views are reasonably possible from the very same evidence, prosecution cannot be said to have proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 15. In view of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and discussion made above, I find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds of accused are discharged.