JUDGMENT : Narasimham, C.J. - This is a petition, in revision, against the appellate judgment of the Sessions Judge of Cuttack-Dhenkanal, maintaining the conviction of the Petitioner u/s 409 I.P.C. by a First Class Magistrate of Dhenkanal, but reducing the sentence to three months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/. 2. The Petitioner was the Sarpanch of Talbarkota Grama Punchayat within Dnenkanal P.S. It was alleged that being entrusted in that capacity with the funds of the Grama Punchayat be committed criminal breach of trust, in respect of a sum of Rs. 4497-13-3 on or about the 18th June 1958. 3. The Orissa Grama Punchayat rules contains detailed provisions regarding the custody of the funds of the Panchayat by the Sarpanch and the manner of spending the same. Rule 139(1) says that the funds of the Punchayat shall be deposited in the Savings Bank of the nearest post office or in a sub-treasury, and the cash balance in the custody of the Sarpanch shall not exceed such sum as may be fixed by the District Magistrate. Rule 144 says that with the sanction of the Grama Punchayat advances may be made to contractors by agreement in writing and that as soon as the advance is made it shall be noted in the Advance Register in Form XIV. Rule 142 prescribes the procedure for payment of claims and it requires that all payments should be attested by the person to whom the money is paid and a proper certificate attached. 4. On 18-6-1958, one Srikar Nanda (p.w. 3) Supervisor of Grama Panchayats went to inspect and audit the accounts of the said Talbarkota Punchayat. The Petitioner was present during the inspection. The cash book showed a net cash balance of Rs. 5597-15-3 and the Savings Pass Book showed a balance of: Rs. 110012 no only. There was thus admittedly a shortage of cash amounting to Rs. 4497-13-3. The Supervisor called upon the Petitioner to produce that sum, but the Petitioner neither produced the sum nor was he able to account for the same. On the very next day the Supervisor submitted a report to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate pointing out the inability of the Petitioner to account for the shortage of this large sum and suggested that Government may be moved to sanction the prosecution of the Petitioner in case he was not able to pay the money. On the very next day the Supervisor submitted a report to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate pointing out the inability of the Petitioner to account for the shortage of this large sum and suggested that Government may be moved to sanction the prosecution of the Petitioner in case he was not able to pay the money. The Sub-divisional Magistrate issued notice on the Petitioner asking him to pay up the amount and in the meantime moved Government for sanctioning his prosecution. The sanction order was issued by Government on the 5th September 1958 and was received in Dhenkanal district office on the 11th September 1958. Cognizance of the case was taken by the Sub-divisional Magistrate on the 4th October 1958. It is now admitted that during the interval between the date of inspection and audit by p.w. 3 and the date of receipt of sanction for his prosecution the Petitioner deposited a substantial portion of the amount due from him-leaving a balance of Rs. 313-13-3 and this small sum was also deposited subsequently. According to the prosecution therefore the Petitioner was guilty of temporary embezzlement of the aforesaid sum of Rs. 4497-13-3. 5. The Petitioner admitted that the said sum was in his custody but pleaded that he utilised the same in making advances to several persons in connection with the construction of various works undertaken by the Grama Panchayat, but without taking receipts from those persons. At the time of inspection objection was taken to the making of such advances without obtaining proper receipts and (according to the Petitioner) he got back the money from the contractors and refunded the same. In support of his plea the Petitioner examined three defence witnesses and also relied on same admissions made in his favour by p.w. 2 during cross-examination. This p.w. 2 is also a member of the Talbarkote Grama Panchayat He stated that the Panchayat had decided that certain works like excavation of two tanks, construction of compound wall of the Panchyat office, repairs to the village pathway, re-thatching of the school, etc. should be completed and that it was further decided that the money should be advanced to various persons to get these works executed in due course. 6. The main difficulty in accepting the defence plea is that it was a belated plea and the evidence in support of the same is quite unreliable. should be completed and that it was further decided that the money should be advanced to various persons to get these works executed in due course. 6. The main difficulty in accepting the defence plea is that it was a belated plea and the evidence in support of the same is quite unreliable. If really, such a large sum as Rs. 4497-13-3-which was admittedly in the hands of the Petitioner-had been advanced to various persons for executing the aforesaid works undertaken by the Panchayat, the Petitioner would have at once mentioned this fact to the Supervisor (p.w. 3) on the elate of inspection, namely, the 18th June 1958. But the evidence of the Supervisor (which is adequately corroborated by his report (Ext. 7) made on the next day) shows that the Petitioner was neither able to produce the cash, nor was he able to account for the same. The Petitioner's plea was that he had advanced money, without obtaining proper receipts to various persons. This may be an irregularity under the Grama Panchayat Rules, but if this plea were true he would surely have said so before the Supervisor. The trial court should doubtless have questioned him u/s 342 Code of Criminal Procedure as to why he did not offer any explanation for this sum on the date of inspection by p.w. 3. But this omission is not material inasmuch as the Petitioner was defended by a lawyer in the trial court and he is himself fairly conversant with English. Moreover from the nature of the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses it is clear that he was aware of this incriminatory circumstances against him. 7. The evidence of the three defence witnesses was rightly ignored by the lower court. They all stated in a general way that they took advanced of various sums of money from Petitioner for executing some works connected with the Punchayat. But none of them has given even approximately the month or the year in which he took the advance. There is thus no evidence to show that the sums which they were said to have taken as advances were part of the money which the Petitioner was called upon to account for. 8. There is yet another circumstance which shows that the Petitioner's belated explanation cannot possibly be true. The post office Savings Bank pass book (Ext. There is thus no evidence to show that the sums which they were said to have taken as advances were part of the money which the Petitioner was called upon to account for. 8. There is yet another circumstance which shows that the Petitioner's belated explanation cannot possibly be true. The post office Savings Bank pass book (Ext. 6) standing in his name shows that between the 1st of April, and the 12th of June 1958, the Petitioner withdrew about Rs. 1900/- from the Post Office Savings Bank account. It is further proved by the entries in the Cash Book of the Punchayat maintained by him, that during this period he had about Rs. 4000/- in cash. Thus during this period he was in custody of cash amounting to about Rs. 6000/- belonging to the Grama Panchayat. In the absence of any material to show that the construction of the various works authorised to be undertaken by the Grama Punchayat (as deposed to by p.w. 2) required the expenditure of such a large sum, the Petitioner's explanation cannot be accepted and must be held to be a pretence. 9. On this finding the question arises as to whether dishonest intention on the part of the Petitioner has been conclusively established so as to hold him guilty u/s 409 I.P.C. On his behalf it was strenuously contended by Mr. Murty that the Petitioner's explanation to account fur the sum might possibly be true in view of the evidence of p.w. 2 and that consequently it cannot be said that the Petitioner had the necessary dishonest intention and accordingly he should be given the benefit of doubt. There is no doubt about the proposition that in order to establish the charge u/s 409 I.P.C. the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had the necessary dishonest intention. But as has been repeatedly pointed out in Harakrishna Mahatab Vs. Emperor, ; Emperor Vs. Chaturbhuj Narain Choudhury, and Ashutosh Roy v. The State 25 C.L.T. 269 dishonest intention cannot be proved directly and must be inferred from the circumstances. But as has been repeatedly pointed out in Harakrishna Mahatab Vs. Emperor, ; Emperor Vs. Chaturbhuj Narain Choudhury, and Ashutosh Roy v. The State 25 C.L.T. 269 dishonest intention cannot be proved directly and must be inferred from the circumstances. It is true that the failure to comply with the rules regarding custody and disbursement of public funds may not suffice, to prove such dishonest intention, but a fairly educated Sarpanch who has been maintaining the Cash Book and other Registers properly, cannot reasonably be expected to have advanced such large sum of money to various persons without obtaining proper receipts as required by the Grama Punchayat Rules. This has a direct bearing on the question of belief or disbelief of the Petitioner's story. He failed to account for the sum at the appropriate time and put forward, at a belated stage, a plea which I have shown to be a mere prudence. Under these circumstances the lower courts were justified in holding that be dishonestly misappropriated the money even though there is no direct evidence of conversion of the same to his use. Once the story that he utilised the sum in making advances to various persons in connection with several works required to be executed by the Grama Punchayat of Talbarkote is disbelieved and the Petitioner was unable to produce the sum when asked to do so by the Supervisor, the only reasonable inference is that he utilised the money for his own purpose's. 10. Mr. Murty then relied Oil some observation in Harakrishna Mahatab Vs. Emperor, ; Durgappa v. State of Mysore AIR 1956 My 40 and In Re: Ganisetti Venkanna, and urged that the Petitioner is at least entitled to the benefit of doubt. In Harakrishna Mahatab Vs. Emperor, the accused was charged with criminal breach of trust in respect of a sum of Rs. 2000/-. There was no liability on his part to refund the money and at the earliest possible opportunity he put forward his explanation to account for the manner in which the money was utilised though the learned Judge's were not prepared to accept his explanation in full they pointed out: "Yet there may be a residuum of truth in the defence story and the bulk of the money at least may have been actually spent on advances and purchase of materials". Hence the accused was given the benefit of doubt and acquitted. It is true that the burden on the accused to account for the money said to have been misappropriated is not so heavy as the burden on the prosecution, to prove the case against him beyond reasonable doubt, and if the accused's explanation might possibly be true, he is en titled to an acquittal But here, 38 I have already shown, the explanation put forward by the Petitioner was a mere pretence and could not possibly be true. Similarly, in Durgappa v. State of Mysore: AIR 1956 Mys 40 . one of the important circumstances in favour of the accused was that he was not asked to deposit the money within a particular period and consequently there was no failure to produce the money when demanded. Here however, the Supervisor p.w. 3 demanded cash on the 18th June 1958, or at least an account showing how the money was spent, but the Petitioner was unable to produce either. Then again, in In Re: Ganisetti Venkanna, there was no demand of the balance of cash, from the accused persons, nor was it held that his explanation to account for the same was a mere pretence. Under such circumstances that Court held that he could not be convicted merely, on the presumption u/s 114 of the Evidence Act and that the prosecution must affirmatively establish by some evidence to prove his dishonest intention. This case also is clearly distinguishable from the instant case. 11. Though no rigid rules can be laid down as to how dishonest intention is to be inferred when a person is charged with criminal breach of trust in respect of sums of money admittedly kept in his custody and there may be circumstances where even failure to account for the same may not be decisive to establish dishonest intention conclusively, yet, in this case, for the reasons already given by me, I am satisfied that the only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from the Petitioner's failure to account for the money admittedly kept in his custody on the date of inspection, viz. 18th June 1958, by the Supervisor, is that he had dishonestly misappropriated the same for his own use and was not in a position to refund the same. 12. The Petitioner was rightly convicted u/s 409 I.P.C. and the sentence is not excessive. 13. 18th June 1958, by the Supervisor, is that he had dishonestly misappropriated the same for his own use and was not in a position to refund the same. 12. The Petitioner was rightly convicted u/s 409 I.P.C. and the sentence is not excessive. 13. The revision petition is dismissed. 14. Revision dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed