The prosecution must prove the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, and the decision of the trial court should not be found to be perverse.

This is a criminal revision petition, filed under Sections 397/401 of the Cr.PC, challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of the judgment and order, dated 30.11.2006, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Marigaon, acquitting the accused-respondent.

2. The fact leading to the case is that, the present respondent Smt. Jaimati Deka was the Branch Post Master at Baghara Post Office for several years. During inspection by the inspector of post offices it is found that the respondent misappropriated an amount of Rs. 1,56,610/-deposited in Recurring Deposit Account and Savings Accounts by the respective account holders. Such misappropriation was detected on 28.6.2004. The accused-respondent had given a written statement to refund all such misappropriated money, but failed to refund the same.

3. Thereafter, the Inspector of Post Offices, Marigaon Sub-division, filed an FIR with the Marigaon Police Station which was registered as Marigaon Police Station Case No. 166/2004, under Sections 420/409 of the IPC. The police investigated into the case, collected evidence, seized relevant documents from the custody of the post master of the aforesaid post office and after completion of the investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the accused-respondent under Sections 420/409 of the IPC.

4. The learned trial court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Marigaon, framed a formal charge against the accused-respondent under Section 409 of the IPC. The accused-respondent pleaded innocence while the charge was explained to her and claimed to be tried. Hence the trial commenced.

5. The prosecution examined as many as 11 (eleven) witnesses in support of its case.

6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused-respondent was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.PC. In her such statement also, she is heard denying the accusations levelled against her. The defence examined none.

7. I have perused the petition as well the evidence of the 11 (eleven) witnesses examined by the prosecution including that of the investigating officer as well as the informant.

8. It deserves a mention here that the accused was convicted and sentenced by the learned trial court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Marigaon, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/-, with a default clause. But the learned Sessions Judge, Marigaon, acquitted the accused-respondent in the aforesaid appeal, vide his judgment, referred to above.

9. I have meticulously examined the judgment of the learned trial court as well as the judgment of the learned appellate court and have also gone through the evidence available in the record of the trial court.

10. Heard Mr. Z. Kamar, learned Senior counsel for the accused-petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned counsel for the petitioner.

11. Let me now scan the evidence on record to find out whether the judgment of the learned trial court, recording acquittal of the present accused-respondent, is perverse to the evidence on record or whether the same is based on evidence.

12. The PW3, PW4, PW9 are the employees of the post office and PW2 is the informant/Inspector of post offices. As per the statement in the FIR as well as the evidence of PW2, i.e. the Inspector of Post Offices, show that on 22.6.2004, he received a complaint from one Pratima Deka, alleging in her A/C No. 563511 in the Bhangara Post Office had been closed pre-maturely and she did not get the money till 22.6.2004. On enquiry, it was found by him that no document relating to the closer of the aforesaid account was forwarded to the head office by the accused-respondent. He also came to know, during the enquiry, that Pratima Deka had received an amount of Rs. 7,000/-from the accused-respondent in her individual capacity which raised suspicion in their minds. There were allegations of the same nature made against the accused-respondent by some other witnesses also, such as Jamini Deka. His enquiry also revea