1. - The above mentioned all 3 Criminal Appeals are co-related and the allegations are also similar learned trial court has also considered two FIRs together in appeal No. 392/89 and in Judgments also the learned trial court has discussed and considered all facts of these three cases together, these three appeals are being decided by a common judgment.

2. The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 4.6.1998 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Sikar in Case No. 390/1974 (163/1973) by which he has acquitted the accused respondents (Deen Dayal and Ganpati Krishna) of the charges for the offence under Section 408 I.P.C.

3. The necessary facts giving rise to this appeal in brief are as follows:

4. A written report F.I.R. Ex.P-40 was filed before the Superintendent of Police, Sikar by the complainant Govind Singh Rawat PW-1, the Secretary Khadi Vikas Mandal, Govindgarh, Khadi Mandal, Sikar, alleging therein that the above Mandal was situated in Sikar and the accused respondents were 1 employed there. It was also mentioned in the report that both the accused respondents were responsible for the entire sales and business of the Mandal, Sikar and Khadi Bhandar Shop was under the said Mandal, Govindgarh. He further mentioned in the report that since there was some apprehension of misappropriation of the funds, an inquiry was got conducted through one Damodar Prasad Kanoongo. On inquiry, it was found that there was so many irregularities and misappropriation of funds by the accused respondents. It was further found that the accused respondents did not deposit the money to the concerned authorities in the office, on the other hand, they utilised the funds for in the nature of their own personal use.

5. Upon the aforesaid report and information, a case under Section 408, 420 IPC was registered against the accused respondents and investigation started. After due investigation, the police submitted a challan before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar for the offence under Section 408 and 420 against both the accused respondents.

6. On 18th July, 1984, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate framed charges for the offence under Section 408 and 420 IPC were framed against the accused respondents and the charges were read over and explained to the accused respondents who pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

7. During trial, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. Thereafter the statement of accused respondent recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and four defence witnesses were also examined.

8. After completing the trial, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar has sentenced the accused respondent through his judgment and order dated 4.6.1988 and acquitted the respondents of the charges framed against them by holding that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused respondent.

9. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order dated 4.6.1988 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar, the State Government has preferred this appeal.

10. In this appeal it has been submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the learned trial court has not considered the statement of prosecution witnesses properly and should have been believed by the trial Magistrate. Thus, the impugned judgment and order are erroneous one and liable to be set aside.

11. The learned Public Prosecutor further contended that the learned trial court has not appreciated the evidence of prosecution in true perspective manner and the prosecution has fully proved the guilty of the accused respondents, hence, the accused respondents ought to have been convicted for the charges leveled against them. He further contended that learned trial court has wrongly held that the signature of the Deen Dayal Ex.P.17 has not been proved by the prosecution. The signature of the accused Deen Dayal has been fully proved by P.W