Stock discrepancy alone cannot prove clandestine removal where a plausible innocent explanation and reasonable doubt remain.

A stock discrepancy between the register and actual tobacco stock was held insufficient, by itself, to prove clandestine removal. The court accepted that shortage could arise from drying during long storage, and that this explanation was not shown to be impossible on the evidence. Because the material did not exclude a reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence, the benefit of doubt remained with the accused. The acquittal was therefore left undisturbed and the appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal could be interfered with on the ground that the discrepancy between the stock register and the actual stock of tobacco established clandestine removal.

Analysis: The discrepancy in stock was not, by itself, enough to establish clandestine removal. The explanation that the shortage was due to drying in storage was not rejected as impossible, especially when evidence showed that tobacco had been stored for a long time and that drying could in some cases be substantial. On the material available, the case did not exclude a reasonable doubt.

Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to reversal of the acquittal, and the respondent was entitled to the benefit of doubt.

Final Conclusion: The order of acquittal was left undisturbed and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In an appeal against acquittal, a stock discrepancy alone does not justify interference where the evidence does not exclude a reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence.

---