JUDGMENT : Narasimham, C.J. - This is a revision against the Appellate judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge of Cuttack, maintaining the conviction and sentence passed on the Petitioner or an offence u/s 409 Indian Penal Code passed by a First Class Magistrate of Cuttack. 2. The Veterinary Department of Government of Orissa are maintaining a Dairy Farm at Khapuria-4 miles from Cuttack town where cows and buffaloes of the Department are kept. The milk produced by these animals is sold at various depots in Cuttack town one of which is at Mangalabag. The procedure for sale of milk to the public appears to be as follows: Printed books containing milk coupons of the denominations of 2 lbs and 1 lbs (each book containing 62 coupons) are sold to the public through the Salesmen in charge of the various milk depots. The public used to present the outer foils of the coupons at the depots and obtain their supplies of milk against those coupons. The salesmen in charge of the depots are entrusted with the sale of these coupons to the public ad the supply of mil to the public on production of the outer foils. Sometimes they sell milk directly to the public. The cash collected by the salesman is to be handed over to the Cashier of the Dairy Farm who is required to deposit the same in the Treasury. All the coupon booklets are first kept at the Khapuria Dairy Farm where a Stock Register of the same is maintained. Whenever any coupon booklets are entrusted to the Salesmen concerned their signatures are obtained in t he Stock Register in token of receipt of the same. The salesmen are also required to keep another Register known as "Coupon Sales Book" in which they make necessary entries to show the sale of coupons to the public. Thus at any moment when an inspecting officer checks the work of a salesman the latter must be able to account for all the coupon books received by him from the Dairy Farm, either by showing their sale to the public as recorded in the Coupon Sales Book maintained by him or by the production of unsold coupon books remaining in his custody. These milk coupons are as good as cash because on their production by a party he is entitled to the supply of the quantity of milk mentioned in the coupon. They are therefore clearly valuable security as defined in Section 30 of the Indian Penal Code, and in any case would amount to movable property. The outer foils of the coupons, delivered to the salesman by the public are sent to the Dairy Farm and preserved there in cans. From a scrutiny of these outer foils, along with the record of coupon books sold to the salesmen as shown in the Stock Book kept at Khapuria Farm, it would be possible to know the exact number of coupons which a particular salesman should account for. 3. The Petitioner was serving as a salesman at Manglabagh depot. It was alleged that from 3-5-1952 to 2-5-1953, he having been entrusted with a large number of coupon books, failed to account for the same when subsequent verification was made, and 248 one-lb coupon books and 88 two-lb coupon books were not accounted for. According to the prosecution the Petitioner committed criminal breach of trust in respect of these coupons. The trial court held him guilty of criminal breach of trust of some money also being the cash received by the Petitioner from sale of milk, but the lower Appellate court has not upheld this portion of the trial court's finding. Ultimately the lower Appellate court held that he committed criminal breach of trust in respect of 88 2-lb coupon books amounting to Rs. 6336/- and 34 one-lb coupon books amounting to Rs. 1234/-. Thus the total value of coupon books in respect of which the Petitioner was said to have committed criminal breach of trust was Rs. 7570. 4. To establish the charge against the Petitioner, the prosecution has relied mainly on: the evidence of the Storekeepers at Khapuria Dairy Farm (P.Ws. 1 and 2) who proved the entries in the Stock Register (Exts. 1 series and 2 series) to show that the Petitioner acknowledged receipt of the coupon books, and also on the evidence of the Assistant Superintendent of Milk Supply at Manghbagh (P.W. 3) to the effect that when he verified the Coupon Sales Book maintained by the Petitioner at Manglabagh on 31st October 1953 he found that 88 2-lb coupon boob and 248 one-lb coupon books were not accounted for. His note to that effect (Ext. 3-a) was accepted as correct by the Petitioner (Ext. 3-b). He also found 36 unsold coupon books there. The number of unaccounted for one-lb coupon books was subsequently reduced as come more coupon books were found. 5. The Petitioner gave a curious explanation in his statement u/s 342, Code of Criminal Procedure. He stated that whenever he received coupons from Khapuria Dairy Farm the entries in the Stock Register were not made contemporaneously, nor did he always sign the Register at that time. Sometimes the coupons used to be sent to him first and later on the Stock Register was sent to him for signature and return. He used to sign the entries in the Register without verification of the entry as directed by his immediate superior, namely the Assistant Superintendent. His defence appears to be that he did not, in fact receive all the coupons noted in the Stock Register, alleged to have been delivered to him. He also stated that he kept a written account of the coupons actually received but that account was never produced, nor was it called for by him from the Department. The Petitioner has not clearly stated as to what happened to that account. 6. In view of the aforesaid plea taken by the Petitioner, the simple question is whether the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 to the effect that whenever the Petitioner's signature was obtained in the Stock Register maintained at the Dairy Farm, the coupons mentioned in that Register were actually handed over to him should the believed, or else whether the Petitioner's explanation that the Stock Register used to be sent to him later on (after the coupons had been handed over to him previously) and that he blindly signed the entries made therein, even though he might not have received all the coupon books, mentioned therein, can be believed. It was urged that irregularities involving the loss of so much money to Government could not have taken place without the connivance of some of the superiors of the Petitioner, that the Petitioner has been made a scapegoat and that his explanation that he mechanically signed the Stock Register all desired by his superiors might possibly be true. It was urged that irregularities involving the loss of so much money to Government could not have taken place without the connivance of some of the superiors of the Petitioner, that the Petitioner has been made a scapegoat and that his explanation that he mechanically signed the Stock Register all desired by his superiors might possibly be true. In support of this argument some emphasis was made on the evidence of the Police Officer (P.W. 11) to the effect that during investigation the police found lack of cooperation from the officers of the Veterinary Department. There may be some truth in the suggestion of the Petitioner that misappropriation of such a large sum of Government money could not have been done by the Petitioner alone, without the help of some of the higher officials of that Department. But I do not think this circumstance will exonerate him from criminal liability. The Petitioner himself has signed the entries in the Stock Register and two witnesses have stated that whenever he put his signature the coupon books were handed over to him (see the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2). It is true that P.W. 2 admitted that before issuing fresh coupon books to the Petitioner no verification was mane as to whether the previous coupon books issued to him had been sold out. This witness further admitted that sometimes the Stock Register used to of sent to the Petitioner for obtaining his signature and sometimes the Petitioner himself used to come to the Dairy Farm at Khapuria and give his signature on it. But even this cannot support the Petitioner's story because as stated by the aforesaid witness the coupons themselves were usually sent to the Petitioner through a peon and on such occasions the Stock Register was also sent, to be signed by the Petitioner and returned. 7. The question ultimately depends on the belief or otherwise of the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 which is supported by the admitted signatures of the Petitioner himself in the Stock Register. I think the two lower courts were justified in holding that there was entrustment of the said coupons with the Petitioner. His lame explanation that he might have signed the Stock Register without actually receiving all the coupon books must be held to be false. 8. I think the two lower courts were justified in holding that there was entrustment of the said coupons with the Petitioner. His lame explanation that he might have signed the Stock Register without actually receiving all the coupon books must be held to be false. 8. His own Coupons Sale Register when scrutinized by the Assistant Superintendent (P.W. 3) revealed that there was no account kept of the several coupons mentioned above. If these had not been sold he should have produced them before Assistant Superintendent at the time of check. His failure to account for these coupons must be explained. The obvious person to explain the same is the Petitioner himself because he alone is in a position to say what he did with the coupons received by him. If for instance they had been destroyed by fire or white ants and thus no wrongful loss was caused to anyone, the Petitioner should have said so. If on the other hand they had been sold to some customers and the money had been credited to Government, but through negligence he omitted to mention those sales in his own Coupons Sales Book he is obviously the best person to state these facts. But he has not put forward any such explanations. As pointed out by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Krishan Kumar Vs. The Union of India, once entrustment is proved, and it is also proved that the accused has failed to account for the goods entrusted to him, he must, by reason of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, explain what happened to the goods entrusted to him. To quote their Lordships: it is not the law of this country that the prosecution has to eliminate all possible defences or circumstances which may exonerate him. Hence, as the Petitioner himself has not taken the plea that the coupons were either destroyed accidentally or that he might have sold the same and credited the proceeds to Government but omitted through oversight to note the fact of such sale in his own register, it is unnecessary for this Court to discuss this aspect at length and make surmises. Once the Petitioner's explanation that he did not receive all the coupons, though he signed the Stock Register, is held to be false, and the Coupons Sale Book maintained by him does not also account for the missing coupons, the reasonable inference is that he has committed criminal breach of trust in respect of the same especially when his own statement that he kept written account of the coupons actually received by him could not be believed because that account was not produced; nor has he given any explanation or led evidence to show what happened to that account 9. It was urged, however, that the primary responsibility for the sale of the coupon books rested with the Assistant Superintendent (P.W. 3) who was in direct charge of the depot as admitted by P.W. 5 and that the Petitioner was merely a subordinate ministerial officer working under his direction. It is true that P.W. 5 has gone to the extent of saying in cross-examination that the Assistant Superintendent was solely in-charge of sale of coupons. But he also added that the salesman (meaning the Petitioner) was to sell milk and milk products and to deposit the proceeds with the cashier. But the Coupon Sale Book is maintained by the Petitioner and he had by signing the Stock Register of the Khapuria Farm unambiguously admitted the receipt of the coupon books by him. It may be that the Assistant Superintendent of Milk Supply being his immediate superior was in direct charge, but the Petitioner having acknowledged receipt of the coupon books and being in direct charge of the maintenance of the coupon sale book, cannot escape responsibility. 10. It was further urged that a number of outer-foils of the coupons handed over to the Petitioner by customers while taking supplies of milk, were found at Manglabagh and that a list of the same was prepared by P.W. 3 as admitted by him in cross-examination. This list was handed over to the Police during investigation. On the basis of this admission Mr. This list was handed over to the Police during investigation. On the basis of this admission Mr. Patnaik for the Petitioner urged that the prosecution should have proved that list and if that list had been compared with the number of the coupons issued to the Petitioner as shown in the Stock Register, it may be found that all the coupons have been accounted for, and if they are not accounted for than only the case against the Petitioner would have been conclusively established. Mr. Patnaik, therefore, urged that the omission of the prosecution to produce the list of outer-foils of coupons, actually found at Manglabagh must throw considerable doubt on the prosecution case, the benefit of which must go to the Petitioner. The obvious answer to this argument is that, the Petitioner himself has not specifically put forward any such plea. His defence was a very simple one, namely that all the coupons that he had received were duly accounted for, and that he signed the Stock Register blindly without verifying the correctness of the entries, and many coupons books which were entered in the Register were, in fact, not actually received by him. Once this plea is found unacceptable on the basis of the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2, the mere non-production of the list of outer-foils of coupons recovered from Manglabagh depot would not improve his case any further. 11. The same comment applies to the answers elicited during the cross examination of P.Ws. 6 and 7 to the effect that on some rare occasions they had purchased coupon books direct from Khapuria Dairy Farm. Even if their evidence be believed it would not help the Petitioner's case very much, because it does not necessarily follow from the above answers of P.Ws. 6 and 7 that the coupon books which they purchased direct from Khapuria Farm must have been shown in the Stock Register as having been delivered to the Petitioner. 12. I am therefore satisfied that the Petitioner was rightly convicted u/s 409 Indian Penal Code. As regards the sentence however, there is some ground for reduction. The Petitioner is a young man aged 25 years. He entered service only in 1952. 12. I am therefore satisfied that the Petitioner was rightly convicted u/s 409 Indian Penal Code. As regards the sentence however, there is some ground for reduction. The Petitioner is a young man aged 25 years. He entered service only in 1952. There are reasonable grounds for suspecting that some other officials of the Veterinary Department have also connived with him in the commission of the offence and being an inexperienced new recruit he had not the strength of mind to resist the temptation. 13. While therefore maintaining the conviction of the Petitioner u/s 409 Indian Penal Code I reduce the sentence passed on him to six months rigorous imprisonment. The sentence of fine of Rs. 250/- is set aside. There is no necessity to pass a sentence of fine in addition to a substantive sentence of imprisonment. Subject to this reduction in the sentence, the revision petition is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed