JUDGMENT Takru, J. - This appeal by the State is directed against an order of acquittal passed by the learned 2nd Asstt. Sessions Judge of Aligarh and arises under the following circumstances: Bankey Behari, the Respondent, was employed as an Extra Departmental Stamp Vendor at the Head Post Office, Aligarh, at the material time on a salary of Rs. 40/- per month. As a Stamp Vendor, his duty was to sell the postage stamps which were entrusted to him for that purpose. The stamps were sold during the usual office hours and at the close of the day the unsold stamps as well as the cash received on account of the stamps sold during the course of day were kept in two boxes supplied by the Post Office which bad to be locked and placed in the custody of the Treasurer of the Post Office. Under the rules the stamps as well as the cash in the hands of the Respondent were checked by the Post Master Aligarh from time to time and the case for the prosecution is that on 25-6-56, the Post Master Aligarh asked the Respondent to get the stamps in his possession the last issue of which worth Rs. 450/- was made to him on 6-7-55--checked before leaving the Post Office. The Respondent did not get the checking done and instead left the Post Office without the knowledge of the Post Master. When the latter noticed this fact he asked one of the Treasurers to inform the Respondent to get the said stamps and cash checked on the following day. Next day at 8 a.m. the Respondent appeared before the Post Master and when asked to get the stamps and cash checked, replied that he had forgotten the key at home and on that pretext left that place. A few minutes later he returned and told the Post Master that he could not bring the key as it had been kept in a bush shirt which his brother had taken away. Thereafter he went away to look for his brother and did not return to the Post Office at noon, the time at which his duty was supposed to commence. The Post Master got suspicious and informed the superintendent of Post Offices on the telephone about the matter and also sent him a written report to that effect. Thereafter he went away to look for his brother and did not return to the Post Office at noon, the time at which his duty was supposed to commence. The Post Master got suspicious and informed the superintendent of Post Offices on the telephone about the matter and also sent him a written report to that effect. The Superintendent of Post Offices sent instructions to the Post Master on the telephone and in compliance with them the latter sent for the two boxes of the Respondent referred to above from the Treasurer, opened them in the presence of the two respectable employees of the Post Office and noted down their contents in two lists which were duly attested by those witnesses. According to these lists the two boxes contained stamps and cash worth Rs. 16/2/6 only. There was thus a shortage of Rs. 433/3/6. Information of the shortage was sent to the Station Officer Incharge, Police Station Banna Devi and a case u/s 409 IPC was registered against the Respondent. Surendra Singh, S.I. (PW 7) took up the investigation of the case and after completing it, submitted a charge sheet against the Respondent and the latter was in due course committed to the court of Sessions where he was tried with the result already stated in the opening paragraph of this judgment. 2. The Respondent while admitting that he was an Extra Departmental Stamp Vendor during the relevant period denied that the Post Master had asked him to get the stamps in his custody checked or that he had gone to the Post Office on 26-6-56. According to him, he was on leave from 28-6-56 and it was only on his return from that leave that he came to learn about the case instituted against him whereupon he surrendered himself in Court. He pleaded ignorance as to whether he received the sum of Rs. 40/- per month as salary or commission. He did not examine any witness in his defence. 3. The prosecution led oral and documentary evidence in support of its case. The trial court after examining that evidence recorded the following findings: (1) That the Respondent was a public servant within the meaning of Section 21, IPC, (2) That the advance of the postal stamps was an entrustment to the Respondent and not a loan as contended for on his behalf. The trial court after examining that evidence recorded the following findings: (1) That the Respondent was a public servant within the meaning of Section 21, IPC, (2) That the advance of the postal stamps was an entrustment to the Respondent and not a loan as contended for on his behalf. (3) that the Respondent misappropriated cash and postage stamps worth Rs. 433/3/6; but holding (a) that the Government was fully secured through the execution of the Security Bond and no permanent loss could be caused by defalcation and (b) that if any defalcation took place the Government could be compensated fully that court was of the opinion that 'the question of wrongful gain to the accused is not free from doubt'. It accordingly gave the benefit of that doubt to the Respondent and acquitted him. 4. Mr. Bhatt learned Counsel for the State, contended that on the first three findings of the trial court, as reproduced above, the fact that the Respondent had sufficient deposit to his credit with the government whereby the loss could be imbursed was neither relevant nor conclusive of the absence of dishonest intention of the accused. Incur opinion the view taken by the court below on this part of the prosecution case, is, in view of the First Explanation to Section 403 IPC, so patently erroneous that it cannot be sustained. Indeed even Mr. P.C. Chaturvecli, the learned Counsel for the Respondent, had to concede with his usual frankness, that he could not support the order of acquittal on that ground. He however sought to support it by challenging the correctness of the finding of the court below on the question of entrustment. According to him, on a correct appreciation of the evidence on record and the law applicable thereto, the transaction in question did not amount to an entrustment but was in substance and effect a loan, with the result that the said transaction did not fall within the purview of Section 409 IPC and hence was not an offence under that section. This contention we shall proceed forthwith to examine. 5. The question as regards the true nature of the transaction in question will depend upon the terms and conditions of the Respondent's appointment read in the light of the relevant provisions of the Post Offices Art, including the Rules made there-under. The appointment letter of the Respondent (Ex. This contention we shall proceed forthwith to examine. 5. The question as regards the true nature of the transaction in question will depend upon the terms and conditions of the Respondent's appointment read in the light of the relevant provisions of the Post Offices Art, including the Rules made there-under. The appointment letter of the Respondent (Ex. DI) shows that he was temporarily appointed in the vacancy of one Sri Kishan Swarup, Extra Departmental Stamp Vendor who had died, on the security of one Banwari Lal, till the regular personal security Bond of the Respondent from the UP Postal Co-operative Society, Lucknow, was received. The Personal Security Bond (Ex. D2) was executed on 25-3-52, The relevant parts of the said Bond read as follows: ... ... ... And whereas by virtue of his employment in the Post Office the said bounden (A) Bankey Behari Lal is required to perform public duties in which the public are interested: For stamp vendors. (1) ... ... ... (2) ... ... ... (3) ... ... ... (4) and has or is liable to have in his custody postage stamps and articles of postal stationery in accordance with the rules thereto relating prescribed from time to time by The Government of India, The Director General of the Head of The Postal Circle in which he is employed: and truly to account for all monies that come or ought to come to his hands as a servant of the Post Office. For extra departmental agent only. (1) ... ... ... (2) And whereas the said bounden (A) Bankey Behari Lal has agreed and is bound to attend at the Post Office of Aligarh, or at the Post Office in any other place within the said postal circle where he may be resident and where he is willing to be employed in the Post Office for the purpose of discharging his duties at such time as superior officer may appoint. ... ... ... 6. A plain reading of the aforesaid terms of the Personal Security Bond makes it clear that as an Extra Departmental Stamp Vendor, the Respondent was required to perform public duty and to account for all moneys that came or ought to have come to his hands as a servant of the Post Office. ... ... ... 6. A plain reading of the aforesaid terms of the Personal Security Bond makes it clear that as an Extra Departmental Stamp Vendor, the Respondent was required to perform public duty and to account for all moneys that came or ought to have come to his hands as a servant of the Post Office. The expression "servant of the Post Office" is not defined either in the Post Office Act hereinafter referred to as the Act--or in the Rules made thereunder. But the expression "officer of the Post Office" has been defined in Section 2 of the Act as including, "any person employed in any business of the Post Office or on behalf of the Post Office." The expression "Post Office" has been defined in the Act at two places and its definition differs according to whether the initial alphabets of that expression are in capital or in small letters. Since the initial alphabets of the expression "Post Office", with which we are concerned in the definition of the expression "officer of the Post Office" consist of capital letters, the definition applicable to it is the one which is contained in Section 2(k) of the Act. According to this definition the expression "Post Office" means the department established for the purpose of carrying the provisions of the Act into effect and presided over by the Director General. Reading Sub-section (e) and (k) of Section 2 together the expression "officer of the Post Office" would include any person employed in any business of the department established for the purposes of carrying the provisions of the Act into effect and presided over by the Director General or on behalf of the said department. We are satisfied from the aforesaid definitions that the expression "officer of the Post Office" is wide enough to include all servants of the Post Office who are engaged in the department which is established for carrying the provisions of the Act into effect and is presided over by the Director General and would, therefore, cover the cases of Extra Departmental Stamp Vendors to the same extent as those of the regular stamp vendors. One of the provisions of the Act, namely Section 16(i), authorises the Central Government to cause postage stamps to be provided of such kinds and denoting such values as it may think necessary for the purposes of this Act. One of the provisions of the Act, namely Section 16(i), authorises the Central Government to cause postage stamps to be provided of such kinds and denoting such values as it may think necessary for the purposes of this Act. Sub-sections (d), (e) and (f) of Sub-Section 2 of Section 16 authorise the Central Government to make rules as to the supply, sale and use of the postage stamps including rules regulating the custody, supply and sale of postage stamps, the terms and conditions subject to which postage stamps may be sold and the duties and remuneration of persons selling postage stamps. 6. Now, Sub-rule (4) of miscellaneous Rule 45 of Ch. I of Volume VI of Posts and Telegraphs Manual provides that, The postmaster must satisfy himself from time to time, that the balances of postage stamps held by the different officials in the office are correct. The check should not be made on fixed dates and the officials should not have previous warning that the check is about to be applied. The money realised by the sale of postage stamps by each clerk entrusted with the duty of selling stamps should be made over to the treasurer at an hour convenient to both, to be fixed by the postmaster. The treasurer will give the clerk a fresh supply of stamps equal in value to the amount "received from the clerk." 7. While Sub-rule (5) of the same rule lays down that: In the offices where special stamp Vendors are sanctioned...he should be relieved of his surplus collections from time to time in course of the day as laid down in Rule 23/1. 8. These rules, which have been framed under the Act and so have all the force of law, leave no room for the argument that the postage stamps supplied to the Extra Departmental Stamp Vendors are given to them as loans, for the idea of periodical checking and the relieving of the stamp vendors of all the surplus daily collections in their hands, is inconsistent with the transaction being a loan, while it is completely in accord with its being an entrustment. For all these reasons we are satisfied that the transaction in question was not a loan but was an entrustment pure and simple. The only question which was urged on behalf of the Respondent in support of the impugned order has therefore to be rejected. For all these reasons we are satisfied that the transaction in question was not a loan but was an entrustment pure and simple. The only question which was urged on behalf of the Respondent in support of the impugned order has therefore to be rejected. The order of acquittal must therefore be set aside and the appeal sustained. 9. The next question to be considered is as to quantum of the sentence which is to be imposed upon the Respondent On this point we are satisfied that having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case a sentence of one year's RI shall be sufficient to meet the ends of justice and we, therefore, order accordingly. 10. The result therefore is that we allow the appeal, set aside the order of acquittal and convict and sentence the Appellant u/s 409 IPC to one year's RI. The Appellant is on bail. He shall surrender forthwith and serve out the sentence imposed upon him.