JUDGMENT VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J. - This Criminal Revision Case is preferred by Revisionist against the impugned judgments of conviction and sentence passed against the him in C.C.No.148/1994 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Chinthalapudi, dtd. 8/10/2002, [Hereinafter 'trial court'] confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.162/2002 on the file of V Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari, dtd. 7/3/2006.[Hereinafter 'Appellate Court'] 2. The Revision Petitioner herein was the Accused No.2before the trial Court. The Respondent herein was the Complainant/State, represented by the learned Public Prosecutor. For sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court. 3. Case of prosecution in nutshell, is that, a. A Sericulture Unit was started at Makkenavari Gudem, to develop sericulture activities among the tribals. Accused No.2 was the Manager of Godavari Grameena Bank, Makkenavari Gudem, which extended loans for the said purpose, sponsored by Andhra Bank. Accused Nos., 2 and 3 identified 18 beneficiaries among the tribal community, to undertake sericulture activities, during February, 1989. As per the scheme, each beneficiary was to receive a sum of Rs.10, 500.00 including subsidy and margin money. b. On 15/5/1990, PW.1/Deputy Director of Sericulture, Eluru conducted inspection and found A-1/Officer of Sericulture Unit has got a saving bank account in his name is in the bank of A-2. The loan amount of Rs.1, 06, 800.00 which was drawn from the bank was credited to his account. A-1 withdrew that amount and failed to disperse it among the beneficiaries and misappropriated the same. Basing on the report made by PW.1 to the Superintendent of Police, a crime was registered against A1 to A3, by PW.13, on 22/9/1991. c. In the investigation of Inspector of Police, Chinthalapudi P.S., it was revealed that, A2 being the Manager, got released loans, subsidies and margin money to the 18 beneficiaries. A1 selected the said beneficiaries. A2 appropriated an amount of Rs.58000.00 to his personal use. Under the guidance of A2, A1 and A3 attested all the financial transactions relating to the beneficiaries. A3 has attested the withdrawal slips of the beneficiaries to show that they have received the cash. The beneficiaries being Scheduled Tribe Koyas, do not know the transactions, and were not well- versed with the affairs of the bank. The accused thus, conspired together, cheated the people, and misappropriated the cash. 4. A3 has attested the withdrawal slips of the beneficiaries to show that they have received the cash. The beneficiaries being Scheduled Tribe Koyas, do not know the transactions, and were not well- versed with the affairs of the bank. The accused thus, conspired together, cheated the people, and misappropriated the cash. 4. The trial court has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Ss. 409, 420, 120(b) against A1 to A3 and charges were framed accordingly. The accused adjured from guilt and claimed to be tried. 5. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, PW.1 to PW.15 were the witnesses examined. Ex.P1 to P28 were the documents marked. Accused denied incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and did not choose to place any evidence on their behalf. 6. After trial, learned trial Judge found A-3 not guilty for the charges levelled against him and found A-1 and A-2 guilty for the charges under Ss. 409, 420, 120(b) of I.P.C. Accordingly, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and pay fine of Rs.1000.00 each and in default, simple imprisonment of three months for the offence punishable under Sec. 409 of I.P.C. Further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and pay fine of Rs.1000.00 each and in default, simple imprisonment of three months for the offence punishable under Sec. 420 of I.P.C. Further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Sec. 120(b) of I.P.C. All these sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 7. Challenging the validity and correctness of the trial Court judgment, accused preferred respective appeals, vide Criminal Appeal Nos.161 of 2002 and 162 of 2002. In these appeals, the Appellate Court confirmed the judgment of the trial including the sentence. 8. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the concurrent judgments, the Accused No.2 carried the matter in revision, on the grounds that the Trial Court and the Appellate Court failed to appreciate the evidence in right perspective, that his conviction was recorded on the basis of prosecution evidence, which is interested, that no victim approached the police in the instant case, that the investigation was not carried on in a right manner to find the real accused, and that the prosecution failed to prove ingredients to constitute offences under Ss. 409 and 420 IPC. 409 and 420 IPC. Arguments Advanced at the Bar 9. Heard Sri G.V.Shivaji, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the material on record. 10. Learned counsel for the Accused No.2 would submit that, Accused No.1 identified the beneficiaries, withdrew the amounts of loan, and deposited in his account, whereas A-2 is the Manager of the Bank. Except making a frail submission that, under the guidance of Accused No.2, it happened, he would contend that nothing has been proved by the prosecution by positive evidence to fasten the liability against the Accused No.2. He would also submit that the Accused No.3 - Village Development Officer, assisted the beneficiaries in securing their loan and disbursement was acquitted in the case, and that entrustment of the property to Accused No.2, essential ingredient for committing a breach of trust, is not present. Accused No.2 being the Manager sanctioned the loan. He joined as Branch Manager, newly recruited officer in February 1988. The incident occurred in February, 1989. Accused No.1/Sericulture Operator used to supply the goods brought from other places to the beneficiaries. Accused Nos., 1 and 3 are responsible for selection of beneficiaries as well as liable to see whether the amounts were reaching to the beneficiaries or not. When Accused No.2 was threatened, his father deposited the amount, and that it can never be considered as a suitable circumstance to convict the Accused No.2 on that point. 11. Learned Counsel would contend that the trial court committed error by convicting A-2 only on taking into consideration of the fact that, the amount was deposited by the father of Accused No.2. Learned Counsel also pointed out that the prosecution had not come up with specific allegations, witnesses to speak against A-2 or even a scrap of paper to prove guilt of A-2. He would submit that no evidence is placed against Accused No.2, except alleging that he cooperated, conspired and guided etc. Ultimately, learned counsel would urge this Court to set aside concurrent judgments of conviction. 12. Refuting the submissions supra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that, the evidence on record is clinching to the fact that Accused No.2 in conspiracy of Accused Nos.1 and 3, facilitated Accused No.1 to withdraw the amount from the accounts of beneficiaries, that Accused No.2 appropriated an amount of Rs.58, 000.00, out of loan amounts withdrawn by the Accused No.1. 12. Refuting the submissions supra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that, the evidence on record is clinching to the fact that Accused No.2 in conspiracy of Accused Nos.1 and 3, facilitated Accused No.1 to withdraw the amount from the accounts of beneficiaries, that Accused No.2 appropriated an amount of Rs.58, 000.00, out of loan amounts withdrawn by the Accused No.1. He would submit that the role of Accused No.2 is crystal clear from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, and there is nothing to interfere in the impugned judgments. Point for Determination 13. The point that would emerge for determination in this revision is: Whether the trial Court and the Appellate Court exercised their jurisdiction, according to law or have erroneously exercised their jurisdiction or failed to exercise their jurisdiction? If so, whether the concurrent judgments of conviction and sentence passed against Accused No.2 for the offences punishable under Ss. 409, 420, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code are sustainable under law or any interference is warranted in revision? Determination by the Court 14. The Hon'ble Apex Court has time and again cautioned about the limits in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction and as to how sparingly it must be used. An appellate court has a jurisdiction, that is co-extensive with that of the original court, in so far as the appreciation and reappreciation of the evidence is considered. While sitting in revision, the Court is primarily concerned with the legality and propriety of the findings and on the exercise of jurisdiction as the object of this jurisdiction is to set right a patent defect or error of jurisdiction or law. A revisional court can interfere with the findings of fact of the lower court when they are perverse and not merely when another view is also possible. Such an extension to the scope of revision is with the objective of advancing the cause of justice. Certain illustrative circumstances wherein it can be invoked include, grossly erroneous decisions, non-compliance with provisions of law, findings based on no evidence, ignorance to the material on record and exercise of judicial discretion in an arbitrary or perverse manner. 15. In Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460 the Hon'ble Supreme Court while identifying contours of revisional jurisdiction held thus; "12......The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. 15. In Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460 the Hon'ble Supreme Court while identifying contours of revisional jurisdiction held thus; "12......The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well- founded error and it may not be appropriate for the court to scrutinize the orders, which upon the face of it bears a token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with law. If one looks into the various judgments of this Court, it emerges that the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These are not exhaustive classes, but are merely indicative. Each case would have to be determined on its own merits. 13. Another well-accepted norm is that the revisional jurisdiction of the higher court is a very limited one and cannot be exercised in a routine manner. One of the inbuilt restrictions is that it should not be against an interim or interlocutory order. The Court has to keep in mind that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction itself should not lead to injustice ex facie." Emphasis supplied 16. In this back drop, this Court will proceed with the matter to examine and scrutinize the material on record, to find out as to the legality of the conviction and reasonableness of the sentence, vide concurrent judgments of the trial Court and the appellate Court. 17. A well-settled proposition of criminal law is that the burden is on the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, for the offences, for which, he faced trial. In the present case, the Accused No.2 faced trial for charges relating to the offences punishable under Ss. 409, 420 and 120-B I.P.C. It is essential to extract the provisions of the offences involved in the present case, as follows; "Sec. 409. In the present case, the Accused No.2 faced trial for charges relating to the offences punishable under Ss. 409, 420 and 120-B I.P.C. It is essential to extract the provisions of the offences involved in the present case, as follows; "Sec. 409. Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent.-Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property in his capacity of a public servant or in the way of his business as a banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished with 1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. Sec. 420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.-Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. Sec. 120B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy.- (1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, 2[imprisonment for life] or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence. (2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both." 18. To prove the guilt of accused for the offence punishable U/s. 409 of the IPC, prosecution must prove that the accused was a servant, or merchant, or broker, or an attorney or an agent; such accused was entrusted with the property; such accused committed a criminal breach of trust in respect of the entrusted property. Criminal Breach of trust is defined vide Sec. 405 IPC. Criminal Breach of trust is defined vide Sec. 405 IPC. The basic requirements to bring the accusation under Sec. 405 of I.P.C. are (1) Entrustment, (2) Misappropriation with dishonest intention and conversion to his own use and (3) Detriment to the person who entrusted the said property. Sec. 409 carves certain categories of persons and magnifies the severity of criminal breach of trust, if committed by them. 19. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that for the relevant period, the revision petitioner herein was Manager of the bank. Simply because A-2 was Manager of the bank and has dominion over the property in the capacity of a public servant, conviction cannot be recorded. Prosecution must further prove that accused is duty bound to account for the property and in breach of the trust which was entrusted to him, he committed the offence u/s.409 IPC. 20. As can be seen from impugned judgment of the trial Court, allegation made against A2 is that, he misappropriated an amount of Rs.58, 000.00 without disbursing the same to beneficiaries. The plea of accused is of total denial. 21. P.W.1, who presented report to the police, vide Ex.P4, deposed that, as Sericulture is a profitable industry, they have introduced a scheme by selecting some cultivators, who could cultivate Mulberry plantation by receiving financial assistance from the bank under ITDA and DRDA. 22. P.W.2, a beneficiary, stated that he raised Mulberry trees, he received Rs.4, 450.00 from A1 through Godavari Grameena Bank and he has not received the remaining amount. 23. P.W.3, another beneficiary, testified that he received Rs.4, 050.00 through A1 from the bank, he has not received further amount. 24. P.W.4 another beneficiary, testified that he raised Mulberry plantation and that A1 paid Rs.15, 00.00, Rs.15, 00.00, Rs.700.00 and Rs.700.00 in different spells. 25. P.W.5, another beneficiary says he received Rs.4, 000.00 from A1 for Mulberry plantation. 26. P.W.6 says on the assurance given by A1, he applied for the loan. He received Rs.2, 000.00 from A2. A1 assured him to provide Chandrikaalu for the purpose of worms and he will pay the amount. A1 handed over pass book to him. 27. P.W.7 says that A1 told him that there will be a subsidy of Rs.5, 000.00 and arranged Rs.2, 000.00, Rs.1, 000.00, Rs.1, 400.00 in different spells. He received only Rs.4, 400.00. 28. A1 assured him to provide Chandrikaalu for the purpose of worms and he will pay the amount. A1 handed over pass book to him. 27. P.W.7 says that A1 told him that there will be a subsidy of Rs.5, 000.00 and arranged Rs.2, 000.00, Rs.1, 000.00, Rs.1, 400.00 in different spells. He received only Rs.4, 400.00. 28. P.W.8 testified that he conducted annual inspection of Makkenavari palem branch and found some heavy amount credited in the savings account of A-1. Thereafter, he conducted enquiry and identified beneficiaries under the scheme. He would say that though vide records the amounts were shown as disbursed to the beneficiaries, the amounts are deposited in the account of A-1 in the same bank. He found Rs.29, 000.00 balance in the account of A-1. All the credit vouchers, which were issued to their bank on which, the beneficiaries put their signatures or thumb impressions were attested by A1 and A3 and P.W.8 further stated that an amount ofRs.29, 531/- was available in the account of A1. A2 confessed that he misappropriated an amount of Rs.58, 800.00, later his father paid the said amount to the bank. According to PW8, A2 is responsible for misappropriation of the said amount. 29. P.W.9, another beneficiary, stated that, A1 arranged loan to him. A2 paid Rs.4, 300.00 to him instead of Rs.10, 500.00. When he questioned about the remaining amount, accused informed them that they remitted the same to the Government towards repayment of the loan. 30. P.W.10/Assistant Director of Sericulture, deposed that, he conducted enquiry about the misappropriation of Sericulture funds, which was sanctioned to 18 beneficiaries through the Grameena bank. He examined the beneficiaries as well as accused, recorded their statements and verified 14 pass books of the beneficiaries. He concluded that subsidy money and margin money were not distributed to the beneficiaries properly. He submitted his report, vide Ex.P5. 31. P.W.11/Branch Manager of the bank says that investigating officer collected some records from the bank. They are marked as Ex.P8 to P25 i.e., the loan applications pertaining to the beneficiaries. He deposed about the debt and credit entries relating to the account of A1. 32. P.W.12/Assistant Director of Sericulture states that, he handed over Ex.P26 to the police and obtained acknowledgment. 33. P.W.13 is Sub-Inspector of Police, Narasapur, who registered the case as Cr.No.53 of 1991, vide Ex.P27. 34. He deposed about the debt and credit entries relating to the account of A1. 32. P.W.12/Assistant Director of Sericulture states that, he handed over Ex.P26 to the police and obtained acknowledgment. 33. P.W.13 is Sub-Inspector of Police, Narasapur, who registered the case as Cr.No.53 of 1991, vide Ex.P27. 34. P.W.14 is the officer of Andhra Bank, Hyderabad, who earlier worked as General Manager, Godavari Grameena Bank. He pleaded ignorance of about this case. 35. P.W.15/Circle Inspector of Police, narrated the investigation done by him with minute details. 36. A1 was an employee from Co-operative Sericulture Department. A2 was the branch Manager of Godavari Grameena Bank. A3 was V.D.O of Makkenavarigudem village. 37. Pertinent to say, all the beneficiaries belong to Boya tribe and are illiterates. A-3 watched over the transactions of selecting the beneficiaries, sanctioning the loan, release of the money, subsidy and margin money. 38. P.W.1 submitted report, vide Ex.P4. The evidence on record is vivid on the point that to develop Sericulture activity to encourage the tribal community, ITDA intended to provide loans to the beneficiaries who can cultivate mulberry. The total loan is about Rs.10, 500.00. Out of which, Rs.3, 400.00 is subsidy. Rs.2, 100.00 is margin money payable by ITDA. The total amount payable to all the beneficiaries is Rs.1, 89, 000.00. The total beneficiaries are 18 members. Seven beneficiaries appeared before the Court and gave evidence. Out of them, P.W.6 and 7 referred the revision petitioner herein. According to P.W.8, they found amount in the account of A1. A1 is not bank employee. A1 is a Sericulture operator. A3 is VDO, whose responsibility is to help the beneficiaries in the process of getting loan and help them in purchasing the necessary raw material from different places to cultivate Malbari in their area. 39. According to the P.W.8, A-2 confessed that due to fear of nonrepayment of loan, he put the amount into the account of A1 and gave part of the amount to the beneficiaries. Sans the alleged confession of A2, the burden is on prosecution to prove that, A2 being a public servant committed breach of the trust. 40. A2 is Manager of the bank. Obviously, in the process of crediting the amount in the accounts of beneficiaries, he is instrumental. The prosecution version is silent about the remaining 11 beneficiaries and also about them receiving or non-receiving the loan amounts. 40. A2 is Manager of the bank. Obviously, in the process of crediting the amount in the accounts of beneficiaries, he is instrumental. The prosecution version is silent about the remaining 11 beneficiaries and also about them receiving or non-receiving the loan amounts. P.W.11 spoke about all the debit and credit entries in the savings account of A1. Instead of placing the burden on prosecution to prove that, the amount which is lying in the account of A1, is relating to the beneficiaries, the learned trial court found fault with accused and observed that "accused failed to adduce any evidence to show that the huge amount shown in Ex.P26 stands in his favour as his personal amount. That was not satisfactorily explained by A1 in 313 Cr.P.C., examination. In absence of first evidence on record, the amount is treated as the loan amount relating to beneficiaries." 41. It is significant to say that, there is no reverse burden, while establishing the guilt of accused for the offence punishable u/s.409 I.P.C. 42. Coming to the case of A3, the trial court opined that, except the oral evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 15, there was no specific allegation made against him, except saying that he also participated with A1 and A2 to get the signature of beneficiaries on the withdrawal forms, but no cogent evidence to show his participation with A1 and A2 in misappropriation of public funds. 43. The evidence of P.W.8 shows the signatures or thumb impressions of beneficiaries were attested by A1 and A3.It is relevant to extract the cross-examination of P.W.8: "The entire amount of the loan including the subsidy and margin money completely credited into the accounts of some of the beneficiaries and not completely credited into the account of some of the beneficiaries. All the debit vouchers bears the signature of the cashier. It is true that the cashier told that, he paid the amount to the beneficiaries directly on present of their tokens. It is true that after taking of amount by the beneficiaries from the cashier on presentation of a token, it is no way concerned to the bank authorities to whom, the beneficiaries took the payment or entrust the amount. I examined the cashier. It is true that after taking of amount by the beneficiaries from the cashier on presentation of a token, it is no way concerned to the bank authorities to whom, the beneficiaries took the payment or entrust the amount. I examined the cashier. It is true that the cashier stated that he paid that the amount to the beneficiaries as per the debit vouchers mentioned in my 161 Cr.P.C., statement to the police.P.W.8 further says he believed the statement of the cashier made in the above case. It is true that A2 is a directly recruited as manager of the bank. It is true that A2 has no previous experience of dealing with the accounts prior to his appointment. Though, he was trained he is taking assistance of senior officials for smooth functioning of the bank. It is true that while he was discharging as Manager, he is taking assistance and advice of the senior officials of our bank and correspondence. It is true that A2 was getting advices from our bank by way of our clarifications about the taking of mortgagers and the amount was taken to the beneficiaries. It is true that it is the duty of Manager i.e., A2 to see the administration and it is not the duty of the Manager i.e., A2 to pay the cash to the beneficiaries. I have not receive any complaint in this case from any beneficiaries about this case that they were not paid the loan amount from out of their account by A1 and A2." 44. It is surprising to note that nothing has been discussed by the trial court about the things elicited in the cross-examination of PW8. It is a serious allegation of criminal breach of trust by public servant. P.W.8 spoke very high about the confession of A-2 before him. But coming to the cross-examination, he never stated before the police, about the alleged confession of A2. No plausible explanation is forthcoming from the said witness about the reason for suppressing the said material evidence before the police. Hence, it is a development in the evidence of P.W.8. 45. According to P.W.8, the cashier informed him that he has given cash to the beneficiaries. No plausible explanation is forthcoming from the said witness about the reason for suppressing the said material evidence before the police. Hence, it is a development in the evidence of P.W.8. 45. According to P.W.8, the cashier informed him that he has given cash to the beneficiaries. Such being the case, when the Manager in his official capacity verified the voucher and put his signature for withdrawal of the amount from the savings account of beneficiaries, when the amount reached the beneficiaries through the cashier, the offence is not made out against A-2. 46. It is for the beneficiaries to entrust the cash to anyone of their choice. On keen observation of cross examination of P.W.8, the amounts, which were debited from the accounts of the beneficiaries, the dates on which, credit entries are not made to the account of A1. According to P.W.8, he found some amount in the account of A1. It appears that, it is his suspicion to project the case as misappropriation, breach of trust, conspiracy etc. P.W.8 categorically deposed that he did not find any amount in the account of A2. According to him, A2 is a new recruitee, without having any previous experience and it is his first posting. 47. The impugned judgments of trial court as well as the appellate court are bereft of reasons as to how they appreciated the facts of the case and what made them to believe the prosecution story as to the discharge of burden to prove the guilt of A-2. 48. In criminal matters, proper marshalling, and appreciation of evidence on the record forms the core of the judicial functioning. It is a settled proposition that a holistic appreciation of the evidence of a witness must take place before reaching a conclusion. The examination of a witness would include evidence-in-chief, cross-examination, and reexamination. Marshalling of evidence is not mere repetition of the contents therein, it includes the application of judicial mind to array the critical aspects involved. Appreciation of evidence, as reiterated in many instances, is the heart and soul of the criminal justice delivery system. While appreciating evidence, the trial judge is expected to act in consonance with the peculiarity of the material on record and settled principles of law. 49. Appreciation of evidence, as reiterated in many instances, is the heart and soul of the criminal justice delivery system. While appreciating evidence, the trial judge is expected to act in consonance with the peculiarity of the material on record and settled principles of law. 49. It is also a settled principle of law that deciding an appeal without appreciating the evidence is erroneous and such an order is liable to be set aside. This is because, an appellate court is expected to exercise independent mind and accordingly assess the evidence and record its findings. Bare suspicions cannot replace proof. In criminal matters, the standard of proof is one beyond reasonable doubt. It should always be remembered that the Court exists for rendering justice to the people. It is profitable to recollect the decision in State of U.P. v. Krishna Gopal, (1988) 4 SCC 302 wherein it was observed as follows; ".........Doubts would be called reasonable if they are free from a zest for abstract speculation. Law cannot afford any favourite other than truth. To constitute reasonable doubt, it must be free from an overemotional response. Doubts must be actual and substantial doubts as to the guilt of the accused person arising from the evidence, or from the lack of it, as opposed to mere vague apprehensions. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely possible doubt; but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense. It must grow out of the evidence in the case. 26. The concepts of probability, and the degrees of it, cannot obviously be expressed in terms of units to be mathematically enumerated as to how many of such units constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt. There is an unmistakable subjective element in the evaluation of the degrees of probability and the quantum of proof. Forensic probability must, in the last analysis, rest on a robust common sense and, ultimately, on the trained intuitions of the Judge. While the protection given by the criminal process to the accused persons is not to be eroded, at the same time, uninformed legitimisation of trivialities would make a mockery of administration of criminal justice.' (emphasis supplied) 50. Coming to the impugned judgement of the appellate Court, the very observation of learned appellate Judge at para Nos. 35 and 36 of the impugned judgment is unwarranted. For easy reference, the said paragraphs are extracted below: "35. Coming to the impugned judgement of the appellate Court, the very observation of learned appellate Judge at para Nos. 35 and 36 of the impugned judgment is unwarranted. For easy reference, the said paragraphs are extracted below: "35. The one act of A.2 support the entire case of the prosecution. The father of A2 paid a sum of Rs.58, 000.00 to the Godavari Grameena Bank, Makkinavarigudem, head office at Rajahmundry. 36. If actually, A.2 has not misappropriated the amount and no role was played by him, there is no need for A.2 and his father to pay back that huge amount of Rs.58, 000.00 to the Bank." 51. Perhaps, this observation made by learned appellate Judge, drove him to confirm the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court without appreciating the evidence and recording findings. The learned trial judge has not even tried to answer the positive things elicited by the defence in the cross-examination of a crucial witnesses on whose evidence, the prosecution relied on to establish the guilt of the accused. Nothing has been exhibited before the trial court to establish the guilt of the accused for the offences charged. 52. As discussed earlier, the revisional jurisdiction can very well be exercised when there is ignorance of material evidence on record in the impugned order. In the present case, the learned trial and Appellate Judges erroneously exercised their jurisdiction by ignoring the material placed on record and jumped to the conclusion based on a fact that, father of A2 deposited the said amount. It is not uncommon to see that, when any financial irregularity takes place in any such institute sans the negligence or guilt of an employee, the authorities direct the employee to first pay the amount and then fight for justice. Simply because, father of A2 paid the amount to avoid further embarrassment, it cannot be a ground to fasten the liability against A-2, in absence of cogent evidence to prove his guilt. Thus, this Court finds it fit to exercise revisional jurisdiction. 53. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision is allowed setting aside the impugned judgments of conviction and sentence against Accused No.2. Resultantly, Accused No.2 is acquitted from the charges for the offence punishable under Ss. 409, 420, 120-B of IPC. The fine amount paid, if any, by A2 shall be refunded. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stands closed.