Judgment Ramabhadran, CJ [1] The appellant has been convicted, by the learned Special Judge of Mahasu, of an offence under 8, 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default three months' simple imprisonment. [2] The prosecution story is, briefly, as follows : - The appellant, Bangi Ram, was working as contingent clerk in the office of the Superintendent of Police, Mahasu, in 1950. K. L. Ghosh (who was prosecuted along with the appellant, but acquitted by the learned Judge) was then working as accountant in that office. It is common ground that three sums of Rs. 145/9/6, Rs. 215/6/- and Rs. 734/B/- were drawn by the appellant from the Imperial Bank of India, Simla, on the basis of contingent bills on behalf of the Superintendent of Police, Mahasu. The first two sums were drawn on 20-6-1950 and the third on 19-7-1950. The amounts were duly entered in the cash book and shown as paid to the accountant for disbursement to the various parties concerned. Out of the sums so drawn, a sum of Rs. 103/10/6 was meant to be paid to D. D. Mehta, petrol dealer, Sanjauli, as follows;- Rs. 71/2/6 out of the first amount of Rs. 145/9/6, Rs. 8/- out of the second amount of Rs. 215/6/- and Rs. 24/8/-out of the third amount of Rs. 734/5/-. Although the amounts were shown in the cash book as having been disbursed soon after they were drawn from the bank it came to light that no payment was made to D. D. Mehta till 3-11-1950 and even then only a sum of Rs. 60/- was paid by Bangi Ram. For the balance, Bangi Ram gave a chit with the promise that he would effect payment on receipt of his salary, [3] On these premises, both Bangi Ram and K. L. Ghosh were prosecuted under Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Ghosh was acquitted by the learned trial Judge and there is no appeal against his acquittal by the State, Consequently, we are not concerned with his case. [4] Learned Counsel for Bangi Ram, appellant, assailed the conviction of his client on various grounds. In the first place, he argued that there was no valid sanction for the prosecution of Bangi Ram. [4] Learned Counsel for Bangi Ram, appellant, assailed the conviction of his client on various grounds. In the first place, he argued that there was no valid sanction for the prosecution of Bangi Ram. In this connection, learned Counsel invited my attention to the provisions of Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, whereby no Court shall take cognizance of an offence under Section 5(2) of the Act, except with the previous sanction of the authority competent to remove the public servant concerned from his office. Mr. Pandit pleaded that the sanction given by the Superintendent of Police on 18-8-1952, Ex. P. A. W. 1 was defective and invalid, as it does not specify of what offence the appellant was to be prosecuted. What happened was that the Sub-Inspector of Police, C. I. A., submitted a report to the Superintendent of Police (Ex. P. A. W.), where, after giving the necessary details, he requested him, i.e. the Superintendent of Police to accord sanction to the prosecution of Bangi Bam of an offence under Section 409, I.P.C., and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Superintendent of Police, without passing a separate order, wrote on the margin against the last paragraph of the report "both F. C. Bangi Ram and A. S. I. K. L. Ghosh, the contingent clerk and the accountant respectively may be prosecuted," This sanction has necessarily to be read along with the context. In my opinion, although it might have been better if the Superintendent of Police had recorded his sanction separately, nevertheless, the procedure adopted by him does not invalidate the sanction. Consequently, I overrule this contention. [5] In the second place, learned Counsel argued, vehemently, that the ingredients of the offence of criminal breach of trust were not established in the case against Bangi Ram and, consequently, his conviction is bad in law. He elaborated his arguments by pleading that after withdrawing the money from the bank, Bangi Bam handed it over to the accountant, Ghosh, and it was the responsibility of the latter to disburse the money, as directed by the Superintendent of Police. In other words, Mr. Pandit argued that there was no entrustment in favour of Bangi Ram, nor any conversion by him and, consequently, he is not guilty of any offence. In other words, Mr. Pandit argued that there was no entrustment in favour of Bangi Ram, nor any conversion by him and, consequently, he is not guilty of any offence. Bangi Bam produced defence witnesses in an attempt to show that he had no separate cash chest and, consequently, it was not possible for him to keep the money after bringing it from the bank. [6] The learned Government Advocate has rightly pointed out that the absence of a separate cash chest is not vital to this case, in view of the following circumstances, for which Bangi Ram had no satisfactory explanation. From the statement of D. D. Mehta, petrol dealer (P. W. 1), it would appear that on 3-11-1950. Batumi Ram came to him, paid him Bs. 60/-, but obtained a receipt for Bs. 103/10/- (the full amount due to D. D. Mehta, vide Ex. P X) As for the balance, Bangi Bam promised to pay it on receipt of his salary and meanwhile, for the satisfaction of D. D. Mehta gave him a chit, Ex. P. U. Bangi Ram has not denied having written out the receipt. Ex. P. X. as well as the chit, Ex. P. U. At the trial, Bangi Ram's explanation for this extraordinary conduct was that Ghosh, the accountant, gave him Rs. 60/- on that date and asked him to go to D. D. Mehta and settle his account. Accordingly, he proceeded to Mehta's shop and after consulting his ledger, prepared the receipt, Ex. P, K. A sum of Rs. 103/10/- was found to Mehta. Bangi Bam paid him Rs. 60/- (which, it is alleged, Ghosh had given him) and requested him to come to the office and receive the balance. Since accounts were being audited, a receipt was urgently required and, accordingly, Mr. Mehta was prevailed upon to execute a receipt and for his satisfaction, appellant Bangi Bam gave him a chit, Ex. P. U., for the balance of Rs. 43/10/-. On returning to Kasumpti, Bangi Bam informed Ghosh of what had taken place. The latter took him to task for giving the chit to Mehta and also warned him that he would be personally responsible for payment of that amount. In support of his version, Bangi Bam produced Mangat Ram, a shopkeeper of Shogi (D. W. 2). 43/10/-. On returning to Kasumpti, Bangi Bam informed Ghosh of what had taken place. The latter took him to task for giving the chit to Mehta and also warned him that he would be personally responsible for payment of that amount. In support of his version, Bangi Bam produced Mangat Ram, a shopkeeper of Shogi (D. W. 2). I have gone through his statement carefully and I entirely agree with the learned Special Judge that no reliance can be placed upon it - especially, as D. D. Mehta (P. W. 1), who appears to be a respectable witness, stated that Bangi Ram told him that he would pay up the balance of Rs. 43/107-on receipt of his salary and, accordingly, Mehta opened an account in the name of Bangi Ram the same day showing a debit of Rs. 43/10/-. In cross-examination, he elucidated the matter further by stating that the transaction of Rs. 43/10/- was "personal" as between him and Bangi Ram and had nothing to do with the Superintendent of Police, Mahasu. I am in full agreement with the view of the Court below that if Bangi Ram had been merely a messenger of K. L. Ghosh, he would never have passed a chit, Ex. P. U., nor would Bangi Ram have taken the personal liability for the sum of Rs. 43/10/-, nor would Mehta have opened an account in his name, Bangi Ram went far out of his way to write out the receipt, Ex. P. X,, and the chit, Ex. P. U. It passes one's understanding as to why Bangi Ram should do all this, unless he had a strong personal motive for keeping the transaction relating to Rs. 43/10/- a secret. Obviously, if, as I am asked to believe, Bangi Bam had no personal interest in the matter, he would have gone back to Ghosh, when he found that Mehta was not willing to accept Rs. 60/- in full settlement. Then, it would have been a matter between Ghosh and Mehta. The explanation given by Bangi Bam is without any substance and cannot be believed. 60/- in full settlement. Then, it would have been a matter between Ghosh and Mehta. The explanation given by Bangi Bam is without any substance and cannot be believed. I, therefore, agree with the view of the Court below that Bangi Ram did retain and did misappropriate temporarily, the amount payable to Mehta from 20-6-1950 and 19-7-50 (when the money was withdrawn from the bank) till 3-11-1950 (when part payment was effected to Mehta), [7] A further contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant was that according to the finding of the lower Court, out of the sum of Rs. 103/10/-, claimed by D. D. Mehta, a sum of Rs. 24/8/- had already been paid, vide receipts Exs. P. S. and P. T. I was, therefore, requested to infer that D. D. Mehta was keen to obtain double payment and as such. no reliance can be placed on his statement. I am unable, however, to accept this argument. When D. D. Mehta was in the witness-box, he was not cross-examined regarding the alleged double payment. Even if we assume for the sake of argument that a part of his claim had already been settled, still the fact remains that money which was withdrawn from the bank for the specific purpose for payment to D. D. Mehta was retained by the appellant and paid by him (in part only) on 3-11-1950. [8] Lastly, it was contended that even if the appellant had retained the money temporarily, he was not guilty of any offence. Mr. Pandit cited the following rulings in support of his argument : (a) 'Raoji Mahale v. Emperor' AIR 1928 Bom 205 (A). There, the facts were that the accused, along with two other clerks, delayed sending remittances to the Government treasury, although the departmental rules required daily remittances. The prosecution, however, failed to show any overt act on the part of the accused. Consequently, fawcett and Mirza, JJ., observed that: Ordinarily, mere retention of money will not suffice to constitute the offence of criminal misappropriation. "There should be some indication, which justified a finding that the accused definitely had the intention of wrongfully keeping Government out of the money; and ordinarily, that would be shown by some overt act, which went beyond mere retention of money that should have been remitted to the treasury. "There should be some indication, which justified a finding that the accused definitely had the intention of wrongfully keeping Government out of the money; and ordinarily, that would be shown by some overt act, which went beyond mere retention of money that should have been remitted to the treasury. He is guilty of gross dereliction of duty in not seeing that the rules are observed." (b) 'Sukhdeo Narain v. Emperor' AIR 1929 Pat 506 (B). There, the facts were that a clerk in the employment of a Co-operative Bank received repayments of loan from three members of the Bank with instructions to pay the said sums to the head office. The sums were duly entered in the cash book and receipt issued, but the monies were not remitted to the head office. Subsequently, the clerk got himself enlisted as a member and procured the loan of a certain amount. Apart from the disobedience of departmental instructions, there was no evidence of misappropriation. Under these circumstances, Wort J., held that: The accused was not guilty under Section 408. Disobedience of the clerk was not criminal and the subsequent procuring of loan, though ultra vires, being in contravention of rules, would not turn the innocent act into criminal. (c) 'Munusami Nainar v. Emperor' AIR 1930 Mad 507 (C). There, the facts were that a village headman delayed the remittance of a sum of Rs. 17/12/6, realized on account of taccavi, for a period of about a month. In the absence of evidence to show misappropriation, a learned Judge of that High Court remarked that: Mere delay in payment of money entrusted to a person, when there is no particular obligation to pay it at a certain date, does not amount to and does not furnish, by itself, a sufficient proof of misappropriation. (d) "Rangi Lall v. Emperor' AIR 1930 Oudh 321 (D). There, Raza J., indicated that: Mere retention of money or mere failure to return it does not necessarily raise a presumption of dishonest misappropriation. The mere fact that the payment was delayed is no ground for imputing a criminal intention. Though the ingredients of the offence of criminal breach of trust are somewhat broadly stated, there is no doubt as to their meaning. The sections, dealing with the offence of criminal breach of trust, were intended to punish an offence of which dishonesty is the essence. Though the ingredients of the offence of criminal breach of trust are somewhat broadly stated, there is no doubt as to their meaning. The sections, dealing with the offence of criminal breach of trust, were intended to punish an offence of which dishonesty is the essence. Any breach of trust is not an offence. [9] The learned Government Advocate, on the other hand, invited my attention to the following decisions; 'Akshay Chandra Bose v. Emperor' AIR 1934 Cal 532 (E). This has been referred to by the learned Special Judge. There, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court pointed out that: Mere retention of money would not necessarily raise a presumption of dishonest intention; but it is a step in that direction. The fact that money entrusted to be used for a particular purpose, was not used for such purpose, that there was retention for a sufficiently long time, would justify the inference that the accused did not intend to pay. In the present case, as already shown, the appellant retained the money in question from 20-6-1950 and 19-7-1950 till 3-11-1950, i. e., for nearly 4 1/2 months. At the end of that period, when he went to make payment, he did not pay D. D. Mehta in full. He paid a portion of the amount to the person entitled and took time to pay the rest. Therefore, the principles laid down in the above Calcutta ruling would apply in the present case. [10] 'Emperor v. Chaturbhuj Narain' AIR 1936 Pat 350 (F). There, a Division Bench of the Patna High Court remarked that: It is not necessary or possible in every case of criminal breach of trust, to prove in what precise manner, the money was spent or appropriated by the accused, because under the law, even temporary retention is an offence, provided that it is dishonest but the essential thing to be proved in case of criminal breach of trust, is whether the accused was actuated by dishonest intentions or not. The question of intention is not a matter of direct proof, but the failure to account for the money proved to have been received by the accused, or giving a false account, as to its use, is generally considered to be a strong circumstance against the accused. The question of intention is not a matter of direct proof, but the failure to account for the money proved to have been received by the accused, or giving a false account, as to its use, is generally considered to be a strong circumstance against the accused. In the present case, as already shown, without paying the full amount to D. D. Mehta, the appellant managed to get a receipt, Ex. P. X, in full satisfaction, i.e., obviously with a view to mislead his officers. [11] State v. Talati Devraj Ruda AIR 1955 San 100 (G). There, a Division Bench of that High Court was of the view that: After the prosecution discharges the burden of proving instrument, it is not necessary for it to prove in what manner the moneys alleged to have been misappropriated have been spent by the accused. If it is shown that money entrusted to the accused for a particular purpose was not returned by him in accordance with his duty, it lies on him to prove his defence." "The question is one of fact in each case and unexplained retention of mosey for a long time might well be sufficient to raise the inference or guilt. [12] In view of all that has been said above, I concur with the view of the Court below that the appellant retained the sum in question with dishonest intention. I, therefore, hold that the appellant was rightly convicted of an offence under, Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. [13] There remains the question of sentence. The Court below has pointed out that the appellant has been under suspension for a long time and has suffered in many ways. The offence relates to the year 1950. The trial started on 17-11-1952. Judgment was delivered on 31-5-1955 after 28 hearings. The appellant's conviction will certainly entail his dismissal from service. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the fine may be reduced. ORDER [14] The conviction of the appellant of an offence under Section 5 (2), Prevention of Corruption Act, is maintained, taut the fine is reduced to Rs. 50, in default one month's simple imprisonment. Fine, in excess of this amount, if realized, must be refunded to the appellant. Subject to this reduction, the appeal is rejected. Appeal dismissed.