The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove entrustment of the property or dominion over the property with the accused to establish the offence of criminal breach of trust.

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

This revision is directed against the judgment dated 23.12.2005 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar, whereby the respondents- accused have been acquitted in a case arising out of FIR No.220 dated 11.06.1992 registered at Police Station Sadar Amritsar, under Section 406 IPC.

2. FIR was lodged on the complaint of District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Amritsar, as per which during the month of January, 1991, 6614 bags weighing 4286 quintals of paddy crop belonging to FCI was stored in the mill premises of M/s Free India Rice Mills, Sangrana Sahib owned by the accused, for the purpose of getting the same milled into rice. Agreement dated 27.12.1990 was executed containing terms and conditions of contract for milling. After taking into account 2% driage allowance, the miller was required to deliver the resultant rice to the FCI which should have been in the ratio of 69% of the quantity of the paddy. It was alleged that accused misappropriated 1657 bags i.e. 1055 quintals 50 kg and 942 grams of paddy belonging to the FCI and, thus, committed offence under Section 406 IPC.

3. Investigation was carried out. Challan was filed. Accused were charge-sheeted under Section 406 IPC. After holding trial, acquittal was recorded by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar by observing that prosecution had failed to prove the entrustment of the quantity of the paddy bags as was being alleged by it and rather, the rice paddy bags stored in the mill of the accused were under the custody of the Food Corporation of India officials, which was proved in an internal inquiry conducted by FCI itself. With these findings, acquittal was recorded, against which this revision was filed.

4. It is contended that whole quantity of paddy bags was stored in the mill premises and so millers were the custodian of the whole paddy and without looking at this aspect, the trial Court has recorded acquittal on the basis of presumption that officials of the Corporation were having the custody of the stocks, though there was no control of these officials over the stock kept by the accused, which remained with M/s Free India Rice Mills. It is further contended that civil suit for recovery of ?4,61,849/- along with interest has already been decreed on 19.11.2005 and that evidence of the prosecution has not been properly appreciated. Prayer for reversing the acquittal is made and to convict the respondent- accused.

5. Refuting the aforesaid contentions, it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent- accused that civil suit for recovery was initially decreed ex-parte, which was later on set aside. Suit was then contested and vide judgment dated 01.08.2019 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amritsar - titled Food Corporation of India Vs. M/s Free India Rice Mills, Tarn Taran Road, Amritsar and others, (PBAS02-000010-1994) has since been dismissed. He has placed on record attested copy of that judgment. It is further contended that internal Committee of the complainant FCI conducted the investigation in the matter and held its officials to be responsible being negligent in storing the paddy. That report dated 28.12.1994 was produced by the accused in defence as Ex.DW3/A, which has been rightly relied upon by the learned trial Court for recording finding of acquittal. Prayer for rejecting the petition is accordingly made.

6. I have considered submissions of both the sides and perused the record.

7. Before proceeding further, it may be noted that there is double presumption of innocence in favour of the respondent- accused. The initial presumption of innocence is on account of the basic principle of criminal law that an accused is presumed to be innocent till proven guilty. Secondly, said presumption is reinforced by the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court after trial based on the evidence. In these circumstances, onus is heavy on the petitioner to show the illegality or impr