B.A. Patil, J.

The present appeal is preferred by the State assailing the judgment and order dated 2-2-2010 passed by the Fast Track Court-I, Raichur in Criminal Appeal No. 22/2008 by which the judgment dated 24-3-2008 passed by the Principal JMFC-II Court, Raichur, in C.C. No. 262/1996, convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 409 of IPC has been set aside.

2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that the accused was discharging the duties of Room Manager in Non-vegetarian Refreshment Room at Raichur Railway Station during June, 1994. He was required to remit the total amount of Rs. 94,256/- to the Railway Authorities which has been received by him towards the sale proceeds, but he remitted only an amount of Rs. 60,683/- on different dates, thereby there was a short remittance of Rs. 33,573/-. It is further case of the prosecution that the said work has been entrusted to the accused but while remitting the amount, he has remitted less amount by escalating the figures and thereby misappropriated the Government money of Rs.33,573/- which has been entrusted to him. On the basis of the complaint, after investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed. On appearance of the accused, copies of the prosecution papers were supplied to him and after hearing both parties, charge came to be framed. The accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried and as such the trial was fixed.

3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined 6 witnesses and got marked 32 documents as per Exs. P1 to P32, whereas on behalf of the accused, no evidence was led, but however, he got marked Exs. D1 to D17. After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused came to be examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. After hearing the arguments on both sides and on evaluation of the material on record, the Court below convicted the accused. Being aggrieved by such order, the accused preferred an appeal before the Fast Track Court-I, Raichur, which came to be allowed by setting aside the order of conviction thereby acquitting the accused. As against the said order of acquittal, the State is before this Court in this appeal.

4. The learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the appellant-State has contended that the judgment of the first appellate Court is contrary to law, facts and evidence on record. The Court below has not properly appreciated the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3 with reference to Exs. P1 to P23. He has contended that there is sufficient evidence to show that the accused-respondent was entrusted with the work of Room Manager to look after the Refreshment Room and he has made a short remittance of Rs. 33,573/- thereby committed criminal breach of trust. He has also contended that the Court below without assigning proper reasons has acquitted the accused. Section 468(2) of Cr. P.C., is not applicable in respect of the offence levelled against the accused which is punishable with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment for a term of ten years and fine. He has further contended that even though it is the case of the accused that the Department has not filed any complaint, as per the Criminal Procedure Code, anybody can set the criminal law into motion. In order to substantiate his contentions, he has relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court, namely, (2006) 5 SCC 381, State of H. P. v. Karanvir; (2009) 11 SCC 737, R. Venkatkrishnan v. Central Bureau of Investigation, and (2015) 13 SCC 87, Inspector of Police and another v. Battenapatla Venkata Ratnam and another. On these grounds, he prayed for allowing the appeal.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-respondent has vehemently argued and contended that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the main ingredient of entrustment. It has not specifically proved as to what property has been entrusted to the accused and who entrusted the said property to the accused. Even the person who has entrusted the property to the accused