ORDER 1. This appeal has been filed on behalf of State of Madhya Pradesh aggrieved of the order of acquittal passed by JMFC, Chanderi, whereby the accused has been acquitted for charge under section 409 of IPC alleging that the he was entrusted a sum of Rs.35,509/- but he was misappropriated that amount. 2. However, the evidence which has come on record has been discussed in paras 15 and 20 categorically established that the prosecution failed to prove entrustment of this amount to the accused. 2. However, the evidence which has come on record has been discussed in paras 15 and 20 categorically established that the prosecution failed to prove entrustment of this amount to the accused. Paragraphs 15 and 20 are relevant and re-produced here for ready reference :- 15- mijksDr laca/k esa ¼v-lk-11½ vk’kkjke JhokLro us crk;k gS fd og o”kZ 1972 ls o”kZ 1997 rd pansjh esa lgk;d f’k{kd ds in ij inLFk jgk gS vkSj o”kZ 1972 ls osru i=d cukus dk dke dj jgk Fkk vkSj vkjksih ek/;fed fo|ky; lhxkSu esa lgk;d f’k{kd ,oa izHkkjh iz/kku v/;kid ds in ij inLFk Fkk vkSj fnukad 3-2-1992 dks mi osru dsUnz lhxkSu dk osru ysus CykWd dk;kZy; pansjh vk;k Fkk vkSj mlus vius osru forj.k dsUnz ds f’k{kdksa dk osru 35]509@& #i;s izkIr fd;k Fkk vkSj ikorh iath ij gLrk{kj fd, Fks] tks fd iqfyl }kjk tIr dh xbZ Fkh vkSj mls iqfyl }kjk lqiqnZxh ij nh xbZ FkhA fnukad 19-5-1992 dks iqu% ikorh iath tIr dh xbZ FkhA ikorh iath vfHk;kstu }kjk izdj.k esa izLrqr ugha dh xbZ gS vkSj blh vk/kkj ij ewy vfHk;kstu ys[k izLrqr fd, tkus ds laca/k esa lk{kh dk ijh{k.k LFkfxr fd;k x;k Fkk vkSj i’Pkkr~orhZ le; esa vfHk;kstu }kjk i;kZIr volj izkIr dj ewy vfHkys[k izLrqr ugha fd;k vkSj u gh lk{kh dk dFku vafdr fd;k x;k gS vkSj izfrijh{k.k dk volj cpko i{k dks izkIr gqvk gSA rFkkfi] bl lk{kh ds dFku tSls gSa] oSls gh Lohdkj Hkh dj fy, tk,a rks Hkh vkjksih }kjk iSarhl gtkj ik¡p lkS ukS #i;s izkIr djus ds laca/k esa dksbZ nLrkost lk{; tks fd vkjksi fl)h ds fy, vfr vko’;d gS] vfHk;kstu }kjk izLrqr ugha dh xbZ gSA 20- mijksDr laca/k esa ;g rks Li”V gS fd vkjksih }kjk vkjksih us tks ‘kM+;a=iwoZd mls bl izdj.k esa lafyIr djus dh ckr dgh gS] og fdl izdkj ‘kM+;a= Fkk vkSj mls D;ksa Qlk;k x;k] vkjksih us dksbZ Li”Vhdj.k ugha fn;k fd mls lafyIr fd, tkus dk D;k vk/kkj FkkA ;|fi ¼v-lk-11½ ds :i esa ijhf{kr lk{kh vk’kkjke JhokLro ftlus vkjksih dks fnukad 3-2-1992 dks vkjksih dks 35]509@& #i;s f’k{kdksa dk osru] osru dsanz pansjh ls nsdj iz-ih-6 dh ikorh iath ij gLrk{kj djus dh ckr dgh gSA ;|fi] bl lk{kh dh lk{; pqukSrh foghu gSA rFkkfi] bl laca/k esa ;g Li”V gS fd Lo;a vkjksih us osru fy, tkus ds laca/k esa vfHk;kstu ds vk{ksfir bl vkjksi fd mlus osru ysdj ikorh ij gLrk{kj fd, gSa] dks Li”V :i ls vLohdkj fd;k gSA ftlds lacaèk esa vfHk;kstu }kjk ,slh fdlh ikorh ij ftl ij vkjksih us gLrk{kj dj osru izkIr fd;k gks] bl rF; dks vf/kd n`<+rk ds lkFk fl) djus dk Hkkj vfHk;kstu ij gSA ftlds laca/k esa vfHk;kstu us iz-ih-10 ds ek/;e ls tks vkjksih ds uewuk gLrk{kj 6 izfr;ksa esa rFkk mldh fy[kkoV vuqla/kku ds le; tk¡p gsrq Hkstk gS] mUgsa fopkj.k ds le; vfHk;kstu dh vksj ls izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gS vkSj u gh gLrk{kj dks izekf.kr djk;k gSA ftlds lacaèk esa vfHk;kstu dk ;g vk{ksfir vkjksi fd vkjksih us osru izkIr dj iz-ih-6 ij vius gLrk{kj fd, gSa] vkjksi dh fl)h gksus dh fLFkfr dks izkIr ugha gksrkA 3. As such, when the entrustment was not proved the question of misappropriation does not arise. Therefore, there is no reason to reverse the judgment of acquittal. I do not find any good reason to accept the appeal of the State against acquittal. There shall be no order as to costs. 4. Bail bonds, if furnished shall stands cancelled.