JUDGMENT (Prayer: Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 378 of Cr.P.C., against the judgment dated 12.07.2005 in C.C.No.333 of 2000 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Namakkal.) 1. This appeal preferred by the State aggrieved by the order of Acquittal. On the basis of out come of the enquiry conducted under the Co-operative Societies Act, pursuant to the internal audit report, case was registered by the CCIW CID, Namakkal Unit in Cr.No:1 of 2000 and taken up for investigation. 2. The final report laid against the respondents 1 and 2, who were the Salesmen in charge of General Section and Shop No. 4 respectively at Salem Ponni Super Market, Namakkal Branch. The charge against them framed for offences under Sections 408, 477 and 120(B) IPC alleging that during the internal audit, it was found that between 01/04/1996 and 31/01/1997, while working as salesmen, they conspired together and failed to maintain the stock registers and sales accounts for the groceries entrusted to them. They fabricated documents together and misappropriated stock worth Rs.5,22,758.50 and Rs.4,81,414.85 respectively. 3. The prosecution has relied upon 21 witnesses and 137 documents to bring home the charges framed against the accused persons for offences under Sections 408, 477 and 120B IPC. However, the trial Court found that there is no material to hold A-1 and A-2 conspired together to commit the offences alleged. They both were working in two different places as salesmen. One at General Section and another at shop No. 4. 4. As far as the charge of breach of trust, the investigating officer (PW-21) has not made any enquiry or investigation independently, except accepting the enquiry report Ex.P-3 submitted by PW-20. The trial Court also taking note of the delay in launching the prosecution and the surcharge proceedings initiated against A-2 for recovery of money, due to stock shortage, had acquitted both the accused. The trial Court pointing that the enquiry report submitted by PW-20, also implicated one Rajamanickam, Zonal Manager, who was overall incharge of the stocks and shops of the Super Market. However, he was not prosecuted but arrayed as witness and examined as PW-3. Hence, acquitted the accused. 5. Aggrieved by the acquittal and the reasoning for acquittal, the appeal is preferred. 6. However, he was not prosecuted but arrayed as witness and examined as PW-3. Hence, acquitted the accused. 5. Aggrieved by the acquittal and the reasoning for acquittal, the appeal is preferred. 6. The Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that, the trial Court acquitted the accused mainly on the ground that they were subjected to departmental proceedings for stock shortage and therefore, they cannot be penalised twice for the same offence. This reason is untenable and contrary to law. Departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings are two distinct actions against the erring staff, one will not exclude the other. The principle of double jeopardy is not applicable to two different proceedings. Ignorant of the legal principle, the trial Court erred in acquitting the accused. 7. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) further submitted that the entries in the stock registers and the sales registers not reconciled with the receipts of stock. This fact has been established by the prosecution through documentary evidence like Receipts Ex.P17 to Ex.P51, Sales ledgers Ex.P60 and Ex.P67. The entries in these ledgers and payment challans proves their guilt of misappropriation. Despite placing adequate evidence, the trial Court erred by not appreciating those documents, but had acquitted the accused on the ground of delay in launching the prosecution. 8. Regarding the acquittal of the charge for conspiracy, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that A-1 and A-2 to cover up the shortage of goods, they both falsified their accounts making entries in stock register as if goods from shop of one accused transferred to the shop of another accused, those entries in fact are fabrication. The falsification of document admitted by the accused persons during the departmental enquiry and they have remitted a part of the money misappropriated. 9. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Society, who is the deciplinary authority on receipt of the enquiry report submitted under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, had properly drawn distinction between the persons in-charge of the stock (A-1 and A-2) and the person who is responsible for the overall supervision (PW-3). The non prosecution of PW-3 cannot be a reason to acquit the others, who are directly responsible for the fabrication of documents and misappropriation. 10. Per contra, the Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/accused, submitted that, PW-1 Pothiraj gave complaint Ex.P4 based on the enquiry report Ex.P3 of PW-20 Veerasamy. The non prosecution of PW-3 cannot be a reason to acquit the others, who are directly responsible for the fabrication of documents and misappropriation. 10. Per contra, the Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/accused, submitted that, PW-1 Pothiraj gave complaint Ex.P4 based on the enquiry report Ex.P3 of PW-20 Veerasamy. The case rest on the evidence and documents marked through Pw-20 Veerasamy. Pw-20 deposed that there was deficit of Rs.4,81,414.85 in the records maintained by A1 Rajaram from April 1996 to March 1997, specifically during March 1997 in page 21 of the register Ex-P64 maintained by A1 marked as Ex.64, it is mentioned Rs.4,77,878.10 was deficit amount. Contrarily, PW-13 and PW-14 had deposed that on 20.03.1997 they went and verified the account register maintained by A1 Rajaram for the period from 1.03.1997 to 19.03.1997. They found that there was a deficit amount of 20 paise only. Thus the evidence of PW-20 and Ex.P64 falsified by the evidence of PW13- Vetri and PW-14-Mahadevan. Further in Ex.P64 there are some entries written and thereafter struck off. So, it clearly show that A1 has not committed any misappropriation as per the scored off entry in the Ex.P64 and the evidence of PW13 and PW14. 11. He further submitted, that though the trial Court finding that the prosecution suffers double jeopardy may not be legally correct, the order of acquittal on other grounds are legally sustainable, since the Investigating Officer admits that he did not make any independent enquiry about the facts stated in the enquiry report Ex.P-3, the contradictions between the oral and documentary evidence cannot be ignored in a case of falsification of accounts. Particularly, in the light of the fact that stock has to be verified at the end of every month. For the period ending March 1997, the entry in the stock register shows shortage of only 20 paise. The FIR registered in the year 2000 alleging misappropriation of several lakhs of rupees stock is contrary to the entry found in the register Ex.P-64. To fix the accused falsely certain entries made subsequently after striking the earlier entry. This clearly would show that the fabrication of record done not by the accused. 12. The FIR registered in the year 2000 alleging misappropriation of several lakhs of rupees stock is contrary to the entry found in the register Ex.P-64. To fix the accused falsely certain entries made subsequently after striking the earlier entry. This clearly would show that the fabrication of record done not by the accused. 12. This Court perused the document marked as exhibits and the relevant deposition of the witnesses.The facts as established through the documentary and oral evidence, indicates that on the instruction of Salem Zonal Joint Registrar of Cooperatives, PW-15, PW-17 and PW-19 members of the flying squad had inspected the shops of the accused on 15/04/1997. A-1 was not in shop, he was informed about the visit of flying squad and brought to the shop. When the squad members asked him to produce the stock register, he escaped through back yard under the pretext of bring the stock register. The verification of stock in hand and the entry of stock received and the sales particulars, they have arrived shortage of Rs.4,60,744.70 stock in the shop manned by A-1. 13. PW-16, the Co-operative Sub-Registrar, on 17/04/1997 has inspected the shop manned by A-2. He found during the inspection that in the Register as on 03/02/1997 the stock in hand shown as Rs.52,087.95/- and the inward stock and sales the stock in hand should have been Rs.61,646.45, whereas the actual stock available in the shop was only Rs.20,302.80. Thereafter, the department has appointed PW-20 as enquiry officer and he after enquiry had filed his report Ex.P-3. Earlier to these two inspections, PW-13 and PW-14 had done the stock verification and noted the stortage in both the shops was only in few paise. 14. Through the cross examination of the witnesses, who had spoken about the inspection, stock verification and enquiry, the accused were able to elucidate the discrepancies in the calculation and corrections in the registers, after the inspections. The contradictions in the oral evidence as well as the entries in the registers has made, the trial Court to give a finding that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. 15. No doubt the learned Trial court Judge has misapplied the principle of double jeopardy. However, that is not the only ground stated for acquittal. The contradictions in the oral evidence as well as the entries in the registers has made, the trial Court to give a finding that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. 15. No doubt the learned Trial court Judge has misapplied the principle of double jeopardy. However, that is not the only ground stated for acquittal. The contradictions found in the oral evidence as well as in the documentary evidence had led to the finding of not guilty. 16. The view of the trial Court is not an improbable view. No doubt, the accused have admitted the shortage of goods and made goods the loss subsequently. However, that is not sufficient to convict them, unless the prosecution could place evidence without any pale of doubt that the falsification of documents was done by the charged accused with intention to cheat the society. This Court finds proof beyond doubt is absent in this case. Therefore, the the trial Court order of acquittal is hereby confirmed. 17. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed. The judgment of the trial Court viz., Judicial Magistrate No.1, Namakkal in C.C.No.333 of 2000 dated 12.07.2005 is confirmed.