JUDGMENT Geidt, J. - This is an appeal against a judgment of acquittal. The accused was charged with having committed offences punishable under sec. 477A of the Penal Code. We find ourselves in some difficulty in dealing with this case, because the Sessions Judge has not come to any findings of fact as to what the accused had actually done with respect to the offences with which he was charged. He assumes that if the case for the prosecution be true, the accused had committed no offence. Now, the case for the prosecution is this, that in the months of March and November 1906 certain sums of money had been received at the Habigunj Munsif for payment into the Government Treasury there. The accused was the accountant in the Munsif's Court and it was his duly to have made entries of the receipt in the chalan Register; this he failed to do. Sometime afterwards when the Register was found to be irregularly kept, an inquiry was held, and the allegation against the accused is that the sums were never paid into the Government Treasury, and that after the commencement of the enquiry, for the purpose of concealing the non-payment, he made entries in the Register showing that on the 23rd March 1906 a sum of Rs. 177-12 bad been paid to the credit of the Collector; on the 6th November another sum of Rs. 16-10 and on the 18th November a sum of Rs. 105 had been similarly paid to the credit of the Collector. The view apparently taken by the Sessions Judge is that as these entries were made not for the purpose of defrauding Government but for the purpose of concealing the fraud that had been previously committed, the case does not fall under sec. 477A of the Penal Code. In support of this view the Judge relied on the rulings in Empress of India v. Jiwanand ILR 5 All. 221 (1882), Queen-Empress v. Girdhari Lal ILR 8 All. 653 (1886) and Abdul Hamid v. The Empress ILR 13 Cal.; 349 (1886), and he accordingly acquitted the accused. 2. It seems to me that in making the entries which are charged against him, the accused was in reality furthering the fraud that had already been committed. 221 (1882), Queen-Empress v. Girdhari Lal ILR 8 All. 653 (1886) and Abdul Hamid v. The Empress ILR 13 Cal.; 349 (1886), and he accordingly acquitted the accused. 2. It seems to me that in making the entries which are charged against him, the accused was in reality furthering the fraud that had already been committed. If the accused had been successful, the money, to which Government was entitled, would have continued to be kept out of the possession of Government. Having regard to this consideration I have no hesitation in holding that the accused, if the case for the prosecution is true, acted fraudulently. In my opinion the view taken by the Sessions Judge is wrong. The order of acquittal is reversed and the accused must be retried by the Sessions Judge on the charges already framed against him. 3. Woodroffe, J.--In my view, the case is covered by the rulings in Lalit Mohun Sarkar v. Queen-Empress ILR 22 Cal. 313 (1894), and in Queen-Empress v. Ramasawmi Vol. 1, Weir. 554 (1838), which have not been referred to by the Sessions Judge. He should therefore have considered the facts. 4. In my opinion, even if the intention with which the false entries were made was to conceal a fraudulent or dishonest act previously committed, the intention would be to defraud and the case would fall within sec. 477A of the Indian Penal Code. I agree, therefore, with the order passed by my learned brother.