In criminal breach of trust, the prosecution must establish entrustment of property to the accused, failing which, acquittal is warranted.

JUDGMENT :

B.P. ROUTRAY, J.

1. Present appeal is directed against judgment dated 24^th July, 2001 passed by learned Special C.J.M. (C.B.I.)-cum-Asst. Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar in S.P.E. Case No.3 of 1993, wherein the Respondent has been acquitted from the charge under Section 409 of I.P.C.

2. Prosecution case in brief is that, the Respondent while serving as Extra Departmental Branch Post Master at Badagotha Branch Post Office in the district of Cuttack under Sungura Sub-Post Office received Rs.4376/- during the year 1988 for deposit in the account of several account holders, but misappropriated the same without depositing it in the account. In this connection, the F.I.R. in R.C. No.8(S)/92 dated 29^th February, 1992 was registered by the Inspector of C.B.I. (P.W.3), Bhubaneswar. The investigation was conducted by P.W.3. In course of investigation, he seized several documents, examined various witnesses and sent the specimen signature as well as questioned documents for Handwriting Expert’s opinion. The charge-sheet was submitted on 30^th September, 1992 for commission of offence punishable under Section 409 of I.P.C.

3. The defence case is of complete denial and falsehood.

4. The prosecution examined four witnesses on their behalf and marked 66 exhibits to prove their case. Defence though did not examine any witness, but marked one entry as Ext.A in the Ledger Card of one of the depositor in his support.

5. Learned trial judge upon analysis of materials came to the finding that the evidences produced on record are insufficient to prove entrustment of the amount to the Respondent and therefore, the offence of criminal breach of trust for misappropriation is not attracted. Accordingly the Respondent is acquitted from the charge.

6. The specific allegation against the Respondent is that he received different amounts from different depositors as deposits to their savings account. But without depositing such amounts he misappropriated the same. It is to be stated here that in an offence of criminal breach of trust entrustment of property is the main ingredient. Once entrustment is proved, prosecution need not establish the manner of misappropriation.

7. The status of the Respondent as a public servant that he was serving as Extra Departmental Post Master remains admitted and undisputed. As per specific allegations, he received Rs.500/- in respect of the depositor Kailash Chandra Rout, Rs.1350/- in respect of Indumati Saran, Rs.126/- in respect of Jayram Behera and Rs.2400/- in respect of Maheswar Rout, during the year 1988. But prosecution did not examine all those depositors. Two of the stated depositors namely Maheswar Rout and Ananta Charan Rout have been examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 respectively. P.W.2 has stated in his evidence that the savings account was in the name of his minor son Kailash Chandra Rout and his father used to deposit the amounts in the account. Said P.W.2 has admitted in his evidence that he had never been to the Post Office to make deposits or withdrawal in the account of his son Kailash Chandra Rout. Prosecution has though marked the signature of said P.W.2 on the stated counterfoil of pay-in slip, but P.W.2 has admitted that he has not made any deposit in respect of said signature appearing in the counterfoil. Therefore, the evidence of this P.W.2 is found not material to attract the offence against the Respondent. It is because P.W.2 is neither the account holder nor has deposited or paid any amount to the Respondent.

8. As stated earlier, the prosecution did not assign any reason not to examine the depositors like Jayram Behera and Indumati Saran. The documents like counterfoil of deposit slips in