JUDGMENT Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. – Heard Mr. Sanjeev Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.P. Singh, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This application is directed against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.07.1999 passed by Sri S.S. Rao, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi in G.R. Case No. 2496 of 1994 by which the petitioner has been convicted for the offences punishable u/s 461/120B of the I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years. Further challenge has also been made to the Judgment dated 13.08.1999 passed by the learned Vth Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Cr. Appeal No. 108 of 1999 affirming the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court. 3. It appears that the First Information Report was instituted in which it was alleged that the Block Development Officer along with other persons had gone to the block office where they found two persons inside the Block office. It is alleged that the petitioner who was night Guard was called to open the lock and after the lock was opened the said two persons were apprehended who had disclosed that it was the petitioner who had helped them to get inside the office premises. Based on the aforesaid allegation Namkum P.S. Case No. 89 of 1994 was instituted. After investigation resulted in submission of charge-sheet cognizance was taken and thereafter the trial proceeded which ultimately led to conviction of the petitioner for the offences punishable u/s 461/120B of the I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years. Against the Judgment and order of conviction and sentence the petitioner has preferred an appeal in Cr. Appeal No. 108 of 1999, which however was dismissed by the learned Vth Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi on 13.08.1999. 4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that save and except the confessional statement of the two apprehended accused persons there is no other materials to suggest that the petitioner had facilitated the trespass of those two persons inside the block office. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the act of the petitioner at best can be turned to be a negligent act for which he cannot be criminally prosecuted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the act of the petitioner at best can be turned to be a negligent act for which he cannot be criminally prosecuted. It has been submitted that the witnesses have consistently stated about the fact that the petitioner had gone to his servant quarter and was subsequently asked by the informant to open the lock. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that no loss was caused to any Government property as the persons who were inside the block office were subsequently apprehended. It has thus been submitted that since there does not appear to be any criminal act or intention on the part of the petitioner the judgment and order of conviction and sentence and its affirmation in appeal be set aside.