chain. In fact, when A.2 was relieved on 06.06.1998, the factum of missing of gold chain was mentioned under Ex.P.9. Therefore, this is a material fact which the lower Court has failed to take into consideration. The non-examination of Krishna Rao is not fatal as mentioned by the lower Court and non-filing of report of missing of gold chain by the Zonal Office is also not material, since the entry in the register maintained by the Bank clearly goes to show that there was missing of gold chain. The factum of missing is established beyond doubt by the evidence of P.W.4, when the chain was not returned to him. The ground that verification of the ornaments was done in the absence of A.1 is also not a valid ground for acquittal, since P.Ws.6 and 7 were subjected to cross-examination and their evidence was not discredited by cross-examination of A.1. There is absolutely no need for them to prepare a false entry or report about missing of the ornament. In fact, the Bank will not be interested in paying the money, when the ornament was available with the Bank. Therefore, all these circumstances are clearly and unerringly pointing out to the guilt of the accused that P.W.4 has pledged the article on 26.03.1998 and it is found missing by 06.06.1998 and there is absolutely no explanation either from A.1 or A.2 as to what has happened to the above ornament. Consequently, it is to be held that the guilt of the accused for an offence under Section 409 of IPC has been established beyond all reasonable doubts and the acquittal of the accused is not proper.
