ORDER : Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appears on behalf of the State. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 02.09.2005 passed by the learned 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gumla, in Criminal Appeal No. 29/2004 whereby and where under the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gumla in G.R. Case No. 620/1995, T.R. No. 22/2004 convicting the petitioner for offence under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for three years as also to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- has been affirmed. 3. The allegation made in the First Information Report is that the petitioner was In-charge Forest Range Officer, Chainpur as also In-charge of State Trading Division, Chainpur, Gumla from 12.03.91 to 27.07.95. The petitioner was also In-charge of the Chainpur Division from 04.05.92 to 15.05.95. It is alleged that a physical verification was made in the Central Forest Depo. Chainpur and 617 poles valued at Rs. 25,494.80/- were found missing from the godown. Further allegation has been levelled that on 09.04.95 fire broke out in the Chainpur loging division and the information about the same was given late by the petitioner. It has been alleged that the report of the petitioner overvalued the loss caused. Allegation has also been levelled that the petitioner misappropriated the woods of Dokapat coop for his personal gain. Irregularities were also found in the Account of Chainpur loging Range and Central Forest Depo. Range. Allegation was also made of payment being made to the transporters through voucher some of which neither contain the name of the materials to be transported nor the names of the coops or the signature of the D.F.O. 4. Based on the aforesaid allegation Gumla P.S. Case No. 96/1995 was instituted. After investigation resulted in submission of charge sheet cognisance was taken and thereafter charge was framed under section 409, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. The petitioner was acquitted under section 471 and 420 of the I.P.C. whereas he was convicted under section 409 of the I.P.C on establishment of the allegation of misappropriation of Rs. 1,000,00/- by voucher no. 28 and Rs. 60,000/- by voucher no. 6CD dated 06.10.93. 6. The prosecution in support of its case had examined four witnesses. 5. The petitioner was acquitted under section 471 and 420 of the I.P.C. whereas he was convicted under section 409 of the I.P.C on establishment of the allegation of misappropriation of Rs. 1,000,00/- by voucher no. 28 and Rs. 60,000/- by voucher no. 6CD dated 06.10.93. 6. The prosecution in support of its case had examined four witnesses. P.W.1 Hasibur Rahman was the Range Officer Incharge of Chainpur Forest Division who has supported the prosecution case. He has stated that the Range Officer works in supervisory capacity and the charge of the coops always remains with the forester. P.W.2 Kedar Ram was a forester of Chainpur Division and State Trading Division. This witness has stated before the Police regarding a fire in the coop. P.W.4 Fransis Khalkho is a driver in the Forest Trading Division. P.W.3 Kumud Prasad is one of the main witness who was a transporter and who had stated that he had received Rs. 1,000,00/- for transporting logs. He has further disclosed that Rs. 60,000/- was paid to Theodar Oraon in his presence. 7. The conviction of the petitioner is based on the fact that the quantity of cut wood rate of the truck which transported the wood from the Jungle to the depot were not mentioned and payment of huge amount without details gives an indication about the misappropriation. The conviction of the petitioner appears to be solely based on assumption. P.W.3 Kumud Prasad had admitted that he had received an amount of Rs. 1,000,00/- for transporting logs and had also admitted to the payment of Rs. 60,000/- made to Theodar Oraon in his presence. 8. The conviction of the petitioner is only with respect to the allegation of misappropriation of Rs. 1,060,00/- issued in support vouchers which has been totally falsified by the statement of P.W.3 Kumud Prasad. The prosecution had brought a number of instances in the First Information Report claiming misappropriation but could not prove any of the said allegations except the misappropriation of Rs. 1,060,00/- which as has been stated above have been nullified by the evidence of P.W.3. Even if the statistics in the vouchers had not been mentioned the same cannot be presumed to construe criminal misappropriation by the petitioner. 9. 1,060,00/- which as has been stated above have been nullified by the evidence of P.W.3. Even if the statistics in the vouchers had not been mentioned the same cannot be presumed to construe criminal misappropriation by the petitioner. 9. At best it can be termed to be a dereliction of duty on the part of the petitioner who was the In-charge Forest Range Officer, Chainpur during the relevant period of time and the same was a supervisory post as has been reiterated by P.W.1. The Investigating Officer had also not been examined which has caused prejudice to the defence. The conviction of the petitioner based on assumption on certain facts which have not been able to be proved by the prosecution automatically signals giving the benefit of doubt to the petitioner. 10. Accordingly, while setting aside the impugned judgments dated 02.09.2005 passed by the learned 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gumla, in Criminal Appeal No. 29/2004 and the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gumla in G.R. Case No. 620/1995, T.R. No. 22/2004, this application stands allowed. 11. The petitioner is discharged from the liabilities of his bail bond. Application allowed.