JUDGMENT Mehrotra, J. - This is a revision by the applicant, Nisar Ahmad, who was a postman at Fyzabad Post Office, against his conviction u/s 52 of the Indian Post Office Act VI of 1898 on a charge of having secreted unpaid letters received by post at Fyzabad and having misappropriated certain sum of money paid as charges for these letters by the addressees. He was sentenced to six months' R.I. and to a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to undergo one month's further rigorous imprisonment. The conviction and sentence passed against him were maintained in appeal by the Sessions Judge. 2. The prosecution story, briefly, is that on the 5th August, 1949, Tulshiram, Postmaster of the Head Post Office, Fyzibad, who had taken over charge of the Post Office two days before the date of occurrence, made a surprise checking of the mail bags of the post peons who were ready to start from the Post Office. In the bag of Nisar Ahmad he found unpaid business reply postcards and envelopes the charges in respect of which were recoverable from the addressees. In the account books a sum of Rs. 3/6/9 was entered as the amount of the charges in respect of business reply postcards and envelopes handed over to Nisar Ahmad but on checking it was found that Nisar Ahmad's bag contained business reply postcards and envelopes the charges in respect of which were -/7/-more than 3/6/9 entered in the account books. Nisar Ahmad's explanation was that he had received the letters from Kesho Prasad, Sorting Postman, and there was no mali fide on his part. In the account books, therefore, -/7/- were added to the amount already entered there and the applicant went out on his duty to deliver postal articles. In the evening, Nisar Ahmad voluntarily gave to the Postmaster a sum of Rs. 1/13/9 and stated that unpaid business reply postcards and envelopes, the charges against which amounted to Rs. 1/13/9 had also been given to him by Kesho' Prasad, Sorting Postman, besides, these the charges recoverable against which it had already been entered in the account books. On this, inquiry was made and it was found that on that date the applicant had actually delivered unpaid business reply articles for Rs. 6/1/(sic)3 to the seed merchants in his area. The applicant, therefore, after paying Rs. 1/13/9 voluntarily, had still not accounted for Rs. On this, inquiry was made and it was found that on that date the applicant had actually delivered unpaid business reply articles for Rs. 6/1/(sic)3 to the seed merchants in his area. The applicant, therefore, after paying Rs. 1/13/9 voluntarily, had still not accounted for Rs. (sic)/5/9. He had delivered as many as 83 postcards and one envelope on that date to the seed merchants. On these facts he was charged u/s 52 of the Indian Post Office Act and Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. Daring the course of the inquiry, Nisar Ahmad had made a statement to the Postmaster which is Ex. 136 on the record. The prosecution case is that in the said statement he had admitted most of the allegations that were levelled against him. He had also stated that there was a constant fraud practised by the Sorting Postman and, as the applicant's courage failed, he brought the facts to the notice of the Postmaster in the evening of that day when he surrendered a part of the amount. 3. Four persons were sent up for trial before the Magistrate. Two of them were discharged by the learned Magistrate and Ram Prasad, one of the accused, was acquitted by him. 4. As regards the applicant, the magistrate held that secretion of letters and misappropriation of money is covered by Section 52 of the Indian Post Office Act and, therefore, it was not necessary to convict the applicant u/s 409 I.P.C. and he was thus acquitted by him u/s 409 I.P.C. The charge against Nisar Ahmad was that on the 5th August, 1949, being a postman No. 7 of the Head Post Office, Fyzabad, he secreted certain business reply postcards and that he committed a breach of trust in respect of Rs. 2/3/6 and misappropriated the above sum realised from the addressees. It is proved by the evidence of the Munibs and the proprietors of the seed stores and other companies that on the date in question they paid Nisar Ahmad the total sum of Rs. 6/1/3 as the charges, on the unpaid business reply postcards and letters. In his statement before the Postmaster (Exs. It is proved by the evidence of the Munibs and the proprietors of the seed stores and other companies that on the date in question they paid Nisar Ahmad the total sum of Rs. 6/1/3 as the charges, on the unpaid business reply postcards and letters. In his statement before the Postmaster (Exs. 136) Nisar Ahmad stated as follows:- I got bearing letters of the value of Rs 5/11/6 from the lot I picked up a number, of bearing letters which I kept first in my pocket and after wards I removed them from my pocket and hid them in my umbrella. The action of shecking of letters by the Postmaster, Fyzabad, frightened me to the extent that my courage failed to defraud the amount. I, therefore, brought the fact to the notice of the Postmaster after giving my return. About a year ago this kind of fraud was being played through Shri Krishna Prasad who has been working as sorting Postman and he was giving me bearing letters all this time ..... Often I refused to do this business but he insisted to have this business done and compelled me to carry on this business as he is an officer to me and can harm me, I had to yield to his wishes. I am innocent in the matter. This is proved from the fact that I voluntarily admitted my guilt by presenting the excess amount to the Postmaster. This action of mine is the proof which I can offer. 5. The counsel for the Petitioner contended that, on the facts alleged and found against the applicant, the applicant could not be convicted u/s 52 of the Indian Post Office Act. Section 52 of the Post Office Act reads as follows:- Whoever being an officer of the Post Office commits theft in respect of, or dishonestly misappropriates, or, for any purpose whatsoever secretes, destroys or throws away any postal article in course of transmission by a post or anything contained therein shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be punishable with fine. 6. The applicant has been charged for secreting the business reply postcards and envelopes and the first question to be considered is whether the applicant can be said to have secreted the letters; There is no direct evidence on the point. 6. The applicant has been charged for secreting the business reply postcards and envelopes and the first question to be considered is whether the applicant can be said to have secreted the letters; There is no direct evidence on the point. None of the prosecution witnesses have stated that they actually saw the applicant removing the letters from the Post-Office. The evidence of the Munib and the proprietors of the seed stores only proves the fact that the applicant had delivered certain bearing letters to them on that date and he had realised a sum of Rs. 6/- and odd from them as charges against those letters. Their evidence only proves possession of the applicant over these bearing letters but they do not prove the fact that it was the applicant himself who actually committed the act of secreting them from other postal letters. They may have been passed on to him by the sorting postman. The charge of secretion u/s 52 I.P.O. Act could only be made out against a person who does the physical act of removing the letters or any other postal articles. So long as the letters are delivered to addressees they cannot be said to have been secreted. A person who realised the charges of bearing letters may be liable for misappropriating the amount but he cannot be charged for secreting letters. Reference may be made in this connection to Queen Empress v. Venkataswan ILR 14 Mad 229. The magistrate was of opinion that the charge u/s 52 of the Indian Post Office Act covers a case of misappropriation of the money and, as such, it was not necessary to have a separate charge framed against the applicant u/s 409 1.P.C. The magistrate, therefore, thought that the applicant was guilty u/s 52 of the Indian Post Office Act not for secreting the letters but for misappropriating the charges which he had realised from the addressees against the reply paid letters. Section 52 I.P. Act deals with the misappropriation of articles and not the charges. So far as the charge of misappropriating the amount, however, is concerned, the prosecution has admitted that on return immediately be paid back a sum of Rs. 1/13/9 more than the amount which, according to the entries in the account books, he had to pay. Thus so far as the sum of Rs. So far as the charge of misappropriating the amount, however, is concerned, the prosecution has admitted that on return immediately be paid back a sum of Rs. 1/13/9 more than the amount which, according to the entries in the account books, he had to pay. Thus so far as the sum of Rs. 5/11/6 is concerned it cannot be said that he misappropriated the amount. The charge of misappropriation on the prosecution case itself can only relate to (sic)/5/- the excess amount realised by him from the addressees and not deposited at the post office. So far as this amount is concerned the prosecution evidence entirely rests upon the testimony of the munibs and proprietors of seeds stores and other business concerns which had received reply paid letters that day through the applicant. In the extra judicial confession, relied upon by the prosecution, the applicant had stated that he deposited Rs. 5/11/6, the entire amount which he had realised that day from the addressees. Moreover, the charge, as has already been noted above, was for having secreted the letters and, therefore, it cannot be said definitely on the statement of the prosecution witnesses that he had dishonestly withheld a sum of (sic)/5/9 out of the realisations made by him that day. 7. It was then contended by the counsel for the applicant that the extra judicial confession made by the applicant was not admissible in evidence u/s 24 of the Indian Evidence Act. It was contended that the magistrate found as a fact that when the postmaster checked the bags in the morning he had reprimanded the postman and had said that he would make inquiries from the merchants and would detect the theft of such articles. It was the effect of this threat in the morning which forced the applicant to make a confession in the evening. I do not think there is any force in this contention. It was the effect of this threat in the morning which forced the applicant to make a confession in the evening. I do not think there is any force in this contention. Section 24 of the Evidence Act only lays down that: - a confession made by an accused person is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding, if the making of the confession appears to the court to have been caused by any inducement, threat or promise having reference to the charge against the accused person, proceeding from a person in authority and sufficient in the opinion of the court to give the accused person grounds which would appear to him reasonable for supposing that by making it he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of temporal nature in reference to the proceedings against him. 8. The confession cannot be said to have been induced by any threat or promise. The postmaster's threat given in the morning may have induced the applicant to deposit voluntarily the money in the evening but it cannot be said that was the inducement for making the confession in the evening. 9. It was then contended that the extra judicial confession unless corroborated by other independent, witnesses alone cannot be the basis of the applicants conviction. There is some force in this contention of the applicant. So far as the actual act of secretion is concerned, as I have already pointed out, there is no other independent evidence except the extra judicial confession in which the applicant did state that he kept a few letters first in his bag and then in his umbrella. In that statement also he does not clearly state that he himself removed those letters. 10. I am, therefore, of opinion that there is no legal evidence to prove the fact that the letters were secreted by the applicant. 11. As regards the misappropriation of the amount realised from the addressees, as I have already pointed out, the applicant immediately on return deposited the entire amount and, therefore, it cannot be argued that there was any dishonest intention on the part of the applicant to misappropriate the amount. In my judgment, the case against the applicant is not proved and, on the facts found against him, the offence u/s 52 of the Indian Post Office Act is not made out and he is entitled to an acquittal. 12. In my judgment, the case against the applicant is not proved and, on the facts found against him, the offence u/s 52 of the Indian Post Office Act is not made out and he is entitled to an acquittal. 12. I, therefore, allow this revision, set aside his conviction and sentence passed against him. The applicant need not surrender to his bail.