The prosecution failed to prove essential elements of misappropriation, including timely entrustment and dishonest intent, leading to the appellant's acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

S.S. Mishra, J.

The present Criminal Appeal, filed by the appellant under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.01.1994 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Sambalpur, in T.R. Case No. 12 of 1990. By the impugned judgment, the learned Trial Court convicted the accused- appellant for the offences punishable under Section 5 (1)(c) read with (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 409 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . The appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year on each count. The Trial Court directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently.

2. Heard Mr H.K. Mund, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. MS Rizvi, the learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is as follows:

There is a Central Nursery situated at Banjhi-dungri under the Afforestation Division, Bolangir, where several Government properties, including 31,007 high stumps of different species, were stored. At the relevant time, one Chakradhar Patel, serving as the Forest Guard, was in physical charge of the said nursery and the Government properties kept therein.

Upon the transfer of Chakradhar Patel, the accused-appellant took over charge from him on 13.11.1984. A formal charge list was prepared at the time of handing over and taking over of charge, which clearly recorded that the accused had received 31,007 high stumps of various species. This charge report was duly submitted to the office of the Divisional Forest Officer (D.F.O.), Afforestation Division, Bolangir.

Subsequently, during actual physical verification, it was found that no such stumps were in existence at the Banjhidungri Nursery. The value of the missing stumps was assessed by the concerned Range Officer at Rs. 6,000/-. Upon further inquiry, a Vigilance Inspector detected the misappropriation and submitted his report, leading to the registration of a case.

After completion of investigation, it was revealed that the accused had misappropriated Government property, namely the said high stumps, and thereby caused wrongful loss to the State. Consequently, a charge sheet was submitted against the accused for allegedly committing offences punishable under Section 5 (1)(c) read with (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and Section 409 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE .

During the course of the proceedings, the accused took inconsistent defences. At one stage, he contended that his predecessor, Chakradhar Patel, had actually misappropriated the stumps and had falsely implicated him. At another stage, he claimed that no such stumps were physically present at the time of taking over charge and that he had signed the charge list without proper verification.

Based on the investigation report and evidence collected, the prosecution alleged that the accused, being a public servant, had dishonestly misappropriated Government property entrusted to him, thereby committing the offences for which he was put to trial.

4. A total of seven witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W.1 was the predecessor Forest Guard of the accused, P.W.2 a local resident, P.W.3 the Head Clerk of the Afforestation D.F.O.’s Office at Bolangir, P.W.4 another local resident, P.W.5 a Range Officer, P.W.6 the Investigating Officer, and P.W.7 the Sanctioning Authority.

5. The learned trial Court, by heavily relying upon the documentary evidence that the stumps were entrusted upon the accused-appellant while he took charge of the nursery and other witnesses gave the following findings:

“4. Pro