The court clarified that misapplication of legal principles regarding entrustment and misappropriation in criminal breach of trust warrants overturning an acquittal.

1. Challenge in the revision is against the order of acquittal rendered in favour of the accused / 1st respondent in CC No. 630/06 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class - III, Kottayam. The de facto complainant, a company represented by its Director is the revision petitioner. The accused was prosecuted for offences under S.406, S.420 and S.468 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ' IPC '), on a report filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kottayam West Police Station. After trial, the learned Magistrate, holding that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offences charged ordered his acquittal. Propriety, legality and correctness of that order is assailed in this revision.

2. Short facts necessary for disposal of this revision can be summed up thus:
The accused was the Restaurant Manager of a 'Kappi Club' operated by the petitioner company. He was also entrusted with the work of making payments to vendors for purchases made in the course of running the shop, apart from other works. The accused, after working for about 7 months as the restaurant manager, abruptly left the job. After he left his job, it was detected that many of the bills placed by the vendors towards purchases made from them for operating the aforesaid club for which uncrossed cheques were issued in the name of such vendors and handed over to the accused for payment, remained unpaid. Enquiries with the bank revealed that the accused had encashed all such cheques impersonating as the bearer of such instruments. The company detected that about 23 cheques were illegally and deceitfully encashed by the accused impersonating as the bearer of such instrument and a sum of Rs.1,32,863/-covered by such instruments had been wrongfully encashed by the accused. He had also not paid the amounts so collected impersonating as bearer of such cheques to the creditors to whom the amounts were payable for supply of goods to the company. Wrongful gain was made by the accused by deceitful means and fraud committing criminal breach of trust and causing wrongful loss to his employer - company. On the complaint filed by the petitioner company before the police, the crime was registered against the accused for offences punishable under S.403, S.404, S.405, S.406, S.415, S.416, S.417, S.418, S.419, S.420 and S.468 of the IPC . After investigation of the crime the Sub Inspector of Police, Kottayam West Police Station laid the charge indicting the accused for offences punishable under S.406, S.420 and S.46 of the .

3. The accused had pleaded not guilty to the charges. Prosecution examined PWs 1 to 16 and got marked Exts. P1 to P17 to bring home the guilt of the accused. The accused when questioned under S.313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') reiterating his plea of innocence contended that the case has been falsely foisted against him at the instance of one Pradeep to wreak vengeance as he had lodged a theft case against him before the police. He further stated that PWs 1 to 3 examined in the case are the friends of the aforesaid Pradeep and after his resignation they had influenced various vendors who supplied goods to the company for levelling false imputations and to prosecute him on a false complaint. However, no evidence was adduced in support of the defence so canvassed.

4. Appreciating the evidence tendered in the case, the learned magistrate came to the conclusion that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the criminal breach of trust against the accused. It wa