Judgment :- 1. The petitioner was convicted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Malappuram under S.409 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 215/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. On appeal, the conviction and sentence were confirmed by the Sessions Judge of South Malabar. The charge against him was that he committed criminal breach of trust in respect of a sum of Rs. 1,636-2-0 entrusted to him in his official capacity as Adhikari of Kuttipuram Amsom between 24th November 1954 and 21st January, 1955. 2. The case for the prosecution may be briefly stated. The petitioner who was the permanent Adhikari of Naduvattom Amsom was also the acting Adhikari of Kuttipuram Amsom from 1-111954 till 1-7-1955. 3. Besides collecting the land revenue due to the Government, it was the duty of the petitioner to collect Thakavi and other loans, in respect of which distress warrants had been issued by the higher authorities. Such amounts when collected had to be remitted into the Government Treasury before the last day of the Treasury month, which is six days before the last day of the calendar month. The petitioner had collected a sum of Rs. 1,636/- from Pws.1 to 3 on account of four loans, of which the first two were taken by PW.1 and the other two by P. Ws. 2 and 3 respectively. Distress warrants had been issued to the petitioner for collection of these loans and though he collected the aforesaid sums in November and December, 1954 and January, 1955, he remitted the same into the Treasury only on 6-7-1955 after an enquiry had commenced against him. PW. 7 who was the Tahsildar of Ponnani at that time asked the petitioner about this matter on 5-7-1955 when the latter requested for a day's time to remit the amount. He paid the sums collected as well as interest thereon into the Government treasury on 6-7-1955. It was alleged by the prosecution that he committed criminal misappropriation in respect of the amount collected by him as a public servant. He paid the sums collected as well as interest thereon into the Government treasury on 6-7-1955. It was alleged by the prosecution that he committed criminal misappropriation in respect of the amount collected by him as a public servant. The defence was that he did not receive the distress warrants, that he did not make any collection directly, that he used to send signed papers through his assistant the Amsom Menon, that the amount came into his hands only on 5th July, 1955 & that he remitted the same the next day. The trial Magistrate found that the respective amounts were collected from PWs.1 to 3 on 24-11-1954, 24-12-1954 and 21-1-1955 respectively, that he committed criminal misappropriation of the amount and that he was guilty of the charge. He was accordingly convicted and sentenced as stated above. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge held that entrustment of sum of Rs. 130/- due under loan No.1 and Rs. 249/7/- under loan No. 2 from PW.1 had not been proved beyond doubt. It was also found that the balance sum had been entrusted to the petitioner by Pws.1 to 3 and that he was guilty of criminal misappropriation of the same. The conviction and sentence were, therefore, confirmed. 4. Shri Gopalan Nambiar, learned counsel for the petitioner, did not challenge the findings that there was entrustment of the sum to the petitioner in November & December 1954 and January, 1955 & that he remitted the amount into the treasury only on 6-7-1955 after he was called upon by PW. 7 to explain his conduct. It was, however, urged that all that could be held on the evidence was that the petitioner retained the amount with him for a few months and that such retention did not constitute the offence of criminal misappropriation. In other words, the argument was that there was no evidence that the petitioner had dishonestly used or disposed of the money. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Ramaswamy Nadar v. The State of Madras. (A. I. R.1958 Supreme Court 56) in support of this argument. That was a case in which a person who collected entry fees from competitors in Crossword competition and failed to pay the prize amounts was convicted of criminal misappropriation. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Ramaswamy Nadar v. The State of Madras. (A. I. R.1958 Supreme Court 56) in support of this argument. That was a case in which a person who collected entry fees from competitors in Crossword competition and failed to pay the prize amounts was convicted of criminal misappropriation. It was held by the Supreme Court that the prosecution had to prove that the entry fees collected was the property of the complainants, that the accused misappropriated the same or converted it to his own use & that he did so dishonestly. On the facts the Supreme Court held that none of these points had been established by the prosecution. It was pointed out that the appropriation of the sum collected by the accused for his business purposes would not amount to criminal misappropriation as he had no duty to apply the entry fees for a particular competition towards payment of prizes to the winners of that competition. The facts here are different as the sum collected was to be applied in a particular way. B. Durugappa and another v. State of Mysore (A.I.R.1956 Mysore 40) is another decision relied on by the petitioner. Padmanabhaiah, J. hold in that case that to establish an offence under S.409, the prosecution must prove that the accused misappropriated or converted the amount in question to his own use and that too, dishonestly. The learned judge observed: "What the accused did with the money during the period he was in possession it is not clear from the evidence. We cannot assume in the absence of evidence to show or circumstances to infer, that he misappropriated the money dishonestly." 5. The Learned Judge, however, pointed out that dishonesty may be proved by evidence or may be presumed from circumstances and that the case was not one of a public servant not depositing the amount within a particular time fixed or within a particular time according to the departmental rules. We are unable to accept this as an authority for the position that in all cases of criminal misappropriation the prosecution must prove by direct evidence that the money was used in a particular way by the accused. The learned judge has indicated that dishonest intention in such cases may be inferred from circumstances. We are unable to accept this as an authority for the position that in all cases of criminal misappropriation the prosecution must prove by direct evidence that the money was used in a particular way by the accused. The learned judge has indicated that dishonest intention in such cases may be inferred from circumstances. This decision was cited in a later case before the same court in Karnam Siddappa v. State of Mysore (AIR. 1958 Mysore 82) in support of an argument that mere delay in returning the money was not a circumstance to justify an inference of criminal misappropriation. Das Gupta, C. J. observed: "In my opinion, it is not possible to hold that extreme view which was propounded by Sri Krishnamurthy before me It is true that normally mere retention is not such a circumstance from which there can be an inference that there has been misappropriation. But there may be cases where it is possible to draw such an inference. It is not possible to lay down a hard and fast rule to the effect that in no case retention would lead to an inference of misappropriation. In other words in my opinion whether or not an inference of misappropriation from the fact of retention would be drawn would depend on the particular facts of each case." 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also brought to our notice that charge to the jury in Rex v. Krishnan reported in AIR 1940 Madras Pandrang Rao, J. explained the elements constituting the offence of criminal misappropriation and the distinction between civil and criminal liability in such a case. The decision in Canisethi Venkappa's case (1958 Andhra Weekly Reporter 333) has no application to the facts of the case. 7. The evidences and circumstances appearing in the case have to be considered in the light of the principles deducible from these decisions. The decision in Canisethi Venkappa's case (1958 Andhra Weekly Reporter 333) has no application to the facts of the case. 7. The evidences and circumstances appearing in the case have to be considered in the light of the principles deducible from these decisions. Before doing so, it is useful to extract S.405 of the Penal Code which defines criminal breach of trust as follows: "Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or if any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffer any other person to do so, commits criminal breach of trust. 8. It is not disputed that the petitioner was a public servant and that the several sums of money as found by the Learned Sessions Judge were entrusted to him in that capacity. It is also admitted that the amounts were remitted into the Government treasury only on 6-7-1955 i.e., several months after the collection. Ext. P23 contains the order of the Government of Madras relating to such collection. It is provided therein that collections of loans and interest should be remitted into the treasury before the close of each treasury month and a copy of the Chitta of daily collections should be submitted along with those remittances. Admittedly this has not been done in this case. It is true that the prosecution has not proved that the sums collected were applied by the petitioner in any particular manner. In a case of criminal misappropriation it is not necessary that the prosecution should always prove that the money entrusted to the accused was applied in any particular manner, or for any particular purpose. It is sufficient if dishonest intention can be gathered from the circumstances. Though the mere fact of retention of the money would not by itself constitute the offence, it is one of the circumstances to be taken into consideration in a case of this kind. So far as this case is concerned the amount was not remitted notwithstanding the direction of the Government in this behalf. Though the mere fact of retention of the money would not by itself constitute the offence, it is one of the circumstances to be taken into consideration in a case of this kind. So far as this case is concerned the amount was not remitted notwithstanding the direction of the Government in this behalf. The money was actually remitted into the treasury only after an enquiry was commenced by Pw. 7 and after the petitioner was directed to appear before him on 5-7-1955. The petitioner was not able to produce the amount immediately and he asked for a day's time. This is another strong circumstance to show that the amount must have been misappropriated by him as otherwise he would not have asked for time. The retention of the money in such cases may or may not be due to innocent causes and it is here that the explanation of the accused becomes relevant. The petitioner's case as seen from his statement in the trial court was that he did not receive the distress warrants or make the collections as alleged by the prosecution. This case has been found to be false and the finding is not challenged before us. He also stated that he went on a pilgrimage to Sabarimalai and that for some days he could not go out of his house on account of the vows taken in connection with the pilgrimage. It was also stated that he was suffering from illness, both before and after the pilgrimage. The illness did not, however, prevent him from attending to his duties as is evident from the fact that he was able to make collections during the period. It is seen from his statement that he had no explanation to offer for the retention of the money in his hands against the express direction regarding remittance of the same. Consistent with the stand taken by him that the money did not come into his hands till 5-7-1955 he could not offer any valid explanation for the same. The inordinate delay of 5 to 7 months in remitting the amounts thus stands unexplained. Another circumstance appearing against the accused is that in remitting the amounts into the treasury he paid not merely the amounts actually collected but also the interest thereon. The inordinate delay of 5 to 7 months in remitting the amounts thus stands unexplained. Another circumstance appearing against the accused is that in remitting the amounts into the treasury he paid not merely the amounts actually collected but also the interest thereon. The relevant records relating to the collection from Pws.1 to 3 show that such interest was not paid by them. The intention to wrongfully deprive the Government of the use of the money for a time and to secure the use of the same for his benefit during that time is, therefore, clearly established. The circumstances thus conclusively prove that there was dishonest use or disposition of the money in violation of the direction prescribing the mode in which the trust was to be discharged. The conviction under S.409 must therefore be upheld. Coming to the question of sentence, we do not consider that it is too harsh in the circumstances. The same is, therefore, confirmed. In the result, the criminal revision petition fails and is dismissed. The petitioner will be taken into custody forthwith. Dismissed.