JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. The prosecution is aggrieved by the judgment dated 4.6.2011 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No. 2, Nalagarh, District Solan in Criminal Case No. 10/2 of 2009/04, whereby the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the accused) has been acquitted of the charge framed against him under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The record reveals that a case under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the accused in Police Station Ramshahar, District Solan vide FIR No. 62/2003 on 8.9.2003 with the allegation that in the month of July, 2002, one Devi Ram (PW-7) has invested a sum of Rs. 40,000/- for a period of three years in TD account and entrusted this amount to the accused, who at the relevant time, was Branch Post Master (BPM) at Post Office Mitian. On being requested time and again, the accused made over one TD Pass book of MSY Account in January, 2003 stamped with date and seal dated 26.1.2003 to PW-7 Devi Ram. In the pass-book, there were entries qua deposit of Rs. 40,000/-. PW-7 Devi Ram allegedly produced the said pass-book on 26/27.8.2002 before the complainant PW-1 Rupinder Singh, Inspector Post Offices, who had come to Branch Post Office, Mitian for inspection. PW-1 Rupinder Singh on verification of the record had found the pass-book having been issued against vague and fictitious account No. 555243. The date of deposit was manually written as 26/27.8.2002. No opening form i.e. 3 T.D. account was filled in nor any SB-26 receipt issued. No entries were found to be made in T.D. Journal and DO Account regarding the deposit of Rs. 40,000/-. Subsequently, the sum of Rs. 40,000/- plus Rs. 4,000/- as interest was credited by the accused into UCR on 11.7.2003. PW-1 Rupinder Singh after checking the records found that the accused had issued a fictitious pass-book and misappropriated the government money and thereby cheated Postal Department. He allegedly used the forged and fictitious pass-book as genuine document. Therefore, application Ext. PW-1/B was made by PW-1 Rupinder Singh to the police of Police Station Ramshahar, District Solan for registration of the case against the accused. Consequently, FIR Ext. PW-9/B came to be registered against the accused. 3. He allegedly used the forged and fictitious pass-book as genuine document. Therefore, application Ext. PW-1/B was made by PW-1 Rupinder Singh to the police of Police Station Ramshahar, District Solan for registration of the case against the accused. Consequently, FIR Ext. PW-9/B came to be registered against the accused. 3. The I.O. PW-9 Surinder Pal, the then SHO Police Station Ramshahar, has conducted the investigation in the case. The reports Ext. PW-2/A and PW-2/B were taken into possession in the presence of the witnesses vide seizure memo Ext. PW-2/C. The appointment letter Ext. PA and declaration form Ext. PB in respect of accused were also taken into possession vide seizure memo Ext. PW-2/D. The B.O. account Ext. PC to PF were also taken into possession vide seizure memo Ext. PW-2/E. The forged pass-book Ext. PG and TD journal Ext. PH were also taken into possession vide seizure memo Ext. PW-2/F. The receipt Ext. PW-4/A was taken into possession in the presence of the witnesses vide seizure memo Ext. PW-4/B. The receipt Ext. PW-1/A was also taken into possession vide seizure memo Ext. PW-5/A. The specimen signatures and hand writing of the accused were also taken during the investigation of the case. Admitted signatures, hand writing and question documents sent for examination to State Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga were found to be in the hands of the same person vide report Ext. PW-9/A. The reasons in support of the report are Ext. PW-11/A. The statements of the witnesses associated by the Investigating Officer were also recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 4. On perusal of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. filed against the accused and the documents annexed therewith as well as finding a prima-facie case having been made out against the accused under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, charge against him was framed accordingly. 5. The prosecution in order to sustain the charge against the accused has examined 11 witnesses in all. The material prosecution witnesses are the complainant Rupinder Singh (PW-1), PW-2 Naresh Sood, PW-7 Devi Ram and I.O. PW-9 Surinder Pal. Learned trial Magistrate, on appreciation of the evidence available on record, has arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. He has, therefore, been acquitted of the charge as pointed out at the outset. 6. Learned trial Magistrate, on appreciation of the evidence available on record, has arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. He has, therefore, been acquitted of the charge as pointed out at the outset. 6. The legality and validity of the impugned judgment has been questioned by the respondent-State on the grounds, inter alia that the prosecution evidence has been appreciated in a slipshod and perfunctory manner. As a result thereof, the findings recorded are based on hypothesis, surmises and conjectures. The testimony of the material prosecution witnesses has been discarded for untenable reasons. No reason has been assigned while discarding the prosecution evidence. The entrustment of Rs. 40,000/- during the year 2002-03 to accused for deposit in the Post Office stands satisfactorily proved from the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record. Such evidence, however, is stated to be erroneously ignored since the accused had received this amount from PW-7 Devi Ram, therefore, it is for this reason he had deposited the same together with interest in the Post Office. Irrespective of such evidence, the findings that no case against the accused is made out, are stated to be highly illegal and erroneous. 7. Learned Addl. Advocate General, while taking us through the evidence available on record has vehemently argued that the testimony of PW-7 Devi Ram as well as that of the complainant PW-1 Rupinder Singh, supported by documentary evidence i.e. the reports Ext. PW- 2/A and PW-2/B and also the pass-book Ext. PG leave no manner of doubt that the accused has misappropriated a sum of Rs. 40,000/- invested by PW-7 Devi Ram for three years in TD account for depositing the same with the accused, who at the relevant time was working as Branch Post Master (BPM), Mitian. According to Mr. Verma, the entrustment of Rs. 40,000/- with the accused stands satisfactorily explained and as he has forged the record and also issued fictitious passbook, therefore, there was ample evidence warranting his conviction in the instant case. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Sr. Advocate, while inviting our attention to the statement of PW-7 Devi Ram, has pointed out that the entrustment of Rs. 40,000/- with the accused in July, 2002 is not at all proved. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Sr. Advocate, while inviting our attention to the statement of PW-7 Devi Ram, has pointed out that the entrustment of Rs. 40,000/- with the accused in July, 2002 is not at all proved. PW-7 Devi Ram has expressed his ignorance that this amount was deposited by him with the accused in July, 2002 rather as per his version, this amount was most probably deposited by him on 11.7.2003. The pass-book Ext. PG was also not handed over to him by the accused and rather received through bus. It has, therefore, been urged that the testimony of PW-7 Devi Ram demolishes the entire prosecution case and as such, no findings of conviction can be recorded against him. 9. What constitutes an offence punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code has been discussed in detail by learned trial Magistrate in the impugned judgment. That part of the judgment reads as follows: ?25. To hold a person guilty u/s 409 of IPC, Prosecution has to establish that accused was either a Public Servant, a Banker, a merchant, or broker or Attorney, or agent. Further, it has to be established by the prosecution that he was enthused with the property in question with any domain over it. Lastly, prosecution has to establish that he committed criminal breach of trust with respect to the amount so entrusted. To make out a case for criminal breach of trust, it has to be proved that there was a entrustment of property or a domain over property. It must be proved that there was dishonest misappropriation or conversion by a person to his own use of that property or that there was dishonest use or disposal of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust was to be discharged, or of any legal contract expressed or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or that he willfully suffered any other person to do so. To hold a person guilty under Section 420 of IPC, Prosecution has to establish that 1) That there should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him, 2) that the person so deceived should be induced to deliver any property to any person or to consent that person shall retain any property, 3) the person so deceived should be intentionally induced to do so or omit to do anything, 4) the act for omission should be one which causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced and the person induced to deliver the property or valuable security. To establish a case under 467 of IPC prosecution has to prove that document in question was a forgery; that the accused forged if and that document is one of the kinds mentioned in the section. For proving a case under section 468 of IPC apart from forgery it has to be established that in forging accused intended that it shall be used for the purpose of cheating. In order to prove a case under section 471 of IPC the prosecution require to prove that there must be a fraudulent or dishonest user of a document as genuine and the knowledge or reasonable belief on the part of the person using the document that it is a forged one.? 10. Admittedly, the accused at the relevant time was serving as Branch Post Master (BPM) at Mitian. His appointment letter is Ext. PA and the declaration form, he filled in, is Ext. PB. The prosecution case that PW-7 Devi Ram has deposited a sum of Rs. 40,000/- with the accused in the month of July, 2002 is not at all proved beyond all reasonable doubt for the reason that said Sh. Devi Ram himself, while in the witness-box as PW-7, did not support the prosecution case qua this aspect the of the matter at all and rather expressed his ignorance qua date etc. as to when this amount was deposited by him with the accused. If coming to his cross-examination, the amount in question was stated to be deposited by him with the accused about 2 ½ years ago. Since he was examined on 20.4.2006, therefore, if his testimony is believed to be true, the amount in question was deposited somewhere in the end of year 2003 or beginning of the year 2004. If coming to his cross-examination, the amount in question was stated to be deposited by him with the accused about 2 ½ years ago. Since he was examined on 20.4.2006, therefore, if his testimony is believed to be true, the amount in question was deposited somewhere in the end of year 2003 or beginning of the year 2004. In his cross-examination, he further tells us that he did not recollect the date and month when such deposit was made by him, however, as per his version, most probably the amount in question was deposited by him on 11.7.2003. 11. Now, if coming to the issuance of pass-book Ext. PG by the accused, this aspect of the matter is also not at all proved beyond all reasonable doubt because the testimony of PW-7 Devi Ram reveals that the pass-book was not handed over to him by the accused on the same date when he had made the deposit of Rs. 40,000/- with him. The same, according to him, was sent to him by someone and he expressed his inability to disclose the identity of that person who had sent the pass-book to him. He has denied the issuance of receipt Ext. PW-1/A by the official of the Postal Department to whom he had handed over the pass-book Ext. PG. According to him, he did not hand over any document to the police during the investigation of the case nor he was interrogated. He expressed his ignorance as to who had prepared the pass-book Ext. PG and also that pass-book Ext. PG is the same which was handed over by him to the police. 12. True it is that the complainant PW-1 Rupinder Singh, while in the witness-box, has supported the prosecution case qua entrustment of Rs. 40,000/- by PW-7 Devi Ram to the accused in the month of January, 2002 and while in the witness-box has also deposed that the accused failed to account for this amount in the records of the Post Office and thereby not only cheated the Postal Department and rather caused wrongful loss to the department and wrongful gain for himself. He further tells us that the pass-book Ext. PG was produced before him by PW- 7 Devi Ram and on enquiry, the same was found to be not genuine and rather forged and fictitious. He further tells us that the pass-book Ext. PG was produced before him by PW- 7 Devi Ram and on enquiry, the same was found to be not genuine and rather forged and fictitious. The record produced by PW-2 Naresh Sood was also pressed into service in order to substantiate this part of the prosecution case. However, when PW-7 Devi Ram himself has not supported the prosecution case qua entrustment of a sum of Rs. 40,000/- to the accused in the month of July, 2002, nor that the pass-book Ext. PG was handed over to him by the accused, such evidence as has come on record by way of the testimony of PW-1 Rupinder Singh and PW-2 Naresh Sood, is hardly of no help to the prosecution case. The report Ext. PW-2/A does not pertain to the present case. If coming to the report Ext. PW-2/B, in view of the statement of PW-7 Devi Ram on the basis thereof also, it cannot be said that a sum of Rs. 40,000/- was deposited by PW-7 Devi Ram with the accused in the month of July, 2002. 13. As per the scientific investigation got conducted during the investigation of the case, the pass-book Ext. PG is in the hands of the accused. We can make a reference here to the report Ext. PW-9/A qua this aspect of the matter and also the reasoning Ext. PW-11/A in support thereof given by Mr. Visheshwar Sharma, Asstt. Director, Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Dharamshala (PW-11). However, such evidence is hardly of any help to the prosecution case for the reason that the specimen hand writing of the accused was obtained during the investigation of the case and not during the course of trial of the accused. As a matter of fact, in order to place reliance on the report of the hand writing expert, the specimen hand writing of the accused as well as questioned documents are required to be obtained during the course of proceedings in the case before the trial Court and not during the investigation of the case. Learned trial Magistrate, while placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Laje Ram and ors., 2011 (2) Him. L.R (DB) 597, has rightly discarded such evidence as has come on record by way of testimony of PW-11 Visheshwar Sharma and also the report Ext. Learned trial Magistrate, while placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Laje Ram and ors., 2011 (2) Him. L.R (DB) 597, has rightly discarded such evidence as has come on record by way of testimony of PW-11 Visheshwar Sharma and also the report Ext. PW-9/A as well as the reasons in support thereof Ext. PW-11/A. 14. Therefore, in view of the re-appraisal of the evidence available on record and for the reasons stated hereinabove, it would not be improper to conclude that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The accused has, therefore, rightly been acquitted of the charge framed against him. 15. Consequently, the judgment under challenge, being legally and factually sustainable, is hereby affirmed. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, this appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. Personal and surety bonds are cancelled/discharged.