JUDGMENT Asthana, J. - The applicant Shankar Sahai was the Sub-Postmaster, Kant, in the district of Shahjhanpur. He was convicted under Sec 409, 465 and 477, I.P.C. by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Shahjhanpur, and was sentenced to various terms of imprisonment and also a fine of Rs. 1,600/ -. He filed an appeal against his conviction before the Sessions Judge who dismissed it on the 1st May, 1954. He has now filed the present revision. 2. The case against the applicant was that he had withdrawn Rs. 5,000/ - from the Savings Bank Account of one Nazar Ali and had misappropriated that amount and in order to cover up the offence committed by him he made false entries in the Savings Bank Account maintained in the post office and also fabricated withdrawal forms purporting to have been signed by the depositor Nazar Ali. Though the total amount embezzled by him was Rs. 5,000/ - he was prosecuted only in respect of a total sum of Rs. 2,500/ - made up of three items of Rs. 1,500/ -, 500/ - and 500/ - withdrawn on the 29th July, 11th November and 3rd December, 1949. Both the lower courts after considering the entire evidence on the record were satisfied that the applicant had withdrawn the above amounts and had misappropriated them and that in order to conceal this offence he had forged Ex. P8 and had also made false entries in the Savings Banks Memo Ex-P7. 3. It has been contended on behalf of the applicant that the circumstantial evidence on the record did not conclusively prove that the different amounts had been withdrawn by the applicant or that the documents had been forged by him or that he had made false entries in the Savings Bank Account. Both the lower courts considered the evidence sufficient and were satisfied with it. I do not think that in revision I should reconsider the evidence in order to decide the question how far the offence is proved against the applicant. The question is entirely one of fact and I am not inclined to interfere with the concurrent finding of the two courts. 4. It has further been contended on behalf of the applicant that the sanction of the proper authority was necessary before the prosecution of the applicant for the aforesaid offences. The question is entirely one of fact and I am not inclined to interfere with the concurrent finding of the two courts. 4. It has further been contended on behalf of the applicant that the sanction of the proper authority was necessary before the prosecution of the applicant for the aforesaid offences. In AIR 1939 1 (Lahore) it was held that sanction was not necessary for the prosecution of a public servant for the offence of criminal breach of trust. This was also a case of a Sub-Postmaster who had embezzled funds entrusted to him by various depositors for credit into their Savings Bank Accounts and who was charged under Sec 409, I.P.C. It was held there that the criminal breach of trust which had been committed by the Sub Postmaster in respect of the deposits in the Savings Bank Accounts was not a per, of his public duty not could the offence be said to have been committed while he was acting in the discharge of his official duty. The same view was taken by the Federal Court in the case of Hari Ram Singh v. The Crown 1940 A.W.R. (P.C.) 43. In view of these two decisions I am of opinion that no sanction was necessary for the prosecution of the applicant under Sections 409, 465 and 477, I.P.C. 5. I, therefore, reject this application. 6. Leave to appeal to the Supreme. Court is refused.