Acquittal in criminal breach of trust and forgery upheld where electronic records were not properly proved.

Acquittal for criminal breach of trust and forgery was upheld because the prosecution failed to prove conversion of entrusted property or misappropriation of sale proceeds. The Daily Collection Reports and computer-generated printouts were not properly proved, as the original hard disk was not seized and the copies did not meet the required evidentiary standard. Dishonour of some cheques received by the oil company did not, by itself, establish criminal breach of trust or forgery. The trial court's view was a possible one, and no substantial or compelling reason existed to disturb the acquittal, which reinforced the presumption of innocence.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal of the accused for offences relating to criminal breach of trust and forgery called for interference in appeal on the basis of the evidence on record.

Analysis: The evidence did not establish that the accused had converted entrusted property for his own use or misappropriated the sale proceeds. The prosecution relied on Daily Collection Reports and computer-generated printouts, but the original computer hard disk was not seized and the copies were not proved in the manner required by law. The evidence also showed that some of the relevant cheques had been received by the oil company and dishonour of those cheques did not by itself establish criminal breach of trust or forgery by the accused. The trial court's view was a possible view and there were no substantial and compelling reasons to disturb the acquittal. The presumption of innocence stood reinforced by the acquittal.

Conclusion: The acquittal was rightly upheld and interference was unwarranted.

---