JUDGMENT : Barman, J. - The accused-Respondent Bidyadhar Rout was Sarpanch of Bahalda Gram Panchayat. He along with the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat was charged under Sections 409 34, 467 54 and 477-A 34, Indian Penal Code for having committed criminal breach of trust in respect of Rs. 1200, having used as genuine a receipt knowing it to be a forged document and having falsified the cash book account of the Gram Panchayat all with intent to defraud in the circumstances hereinafter stated. The Secretary of the Gram Panchayat was acquitted by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj on the finding that he did not share the common intention to misappropriate the amount or to forge the voucher receipt and that the Secretary scribed the contents of the voucher receipt and made the entry in the account book with reference to the voucher receipt as he was merely discharging clerical duties. The Sarpanch accused-Respondent herein was convicted of the charges and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence of misappropriation of the money and for one and a half years for forgery and using as genuine the forged document, and for one year for falsification of accounts-all sentences to run concurrently. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj-Keonjhar reversed the decision of the learned trial Judge and acquitted the accused Sarpanch of all charges. 2. The prosecution case against the Sarpanch accused Respondent herein is that on June 26, 1960 he fabricated a receipt Ext. 5 purporting to show that Hadibandhu Mahanta, who is said to have been a Ward Member of Bahalda Gram Panchayat, received in advance a sum of Rs. 12001 for supply of asbestos sheets from Tata for the purpose of construction of a house for Bahalda Gram Panchayat and that a false entry was made in the account book of the Gram Panchayat accordingly. Hadibandhu Mahanta who was called as a witness as P.W. 8 denied his signature on the forged receipt Ext. 5 he said that he did not grant this receipt and never signed on the revenue stamp affixed to it. The prosecution also examined a handwriting expert as P.W. 3 who is Government Examiner of Questioned Documents his opinion is that the signature on Ext. 5 is not in the hand writing of Hadibandu Mahanta. 3. 5 he said that he did not grant this receipt and never signed on the revenue stamp affixed to it. The prosecution also examined a handwriting expert as P.W. 3 who is Government Examiner of Questioned Documents his opinion is that the signature on Ext. 5 is not in the hand writing of Hadibandu Mahanta. 3. The defence of the accused Sarpanch is that he had paid the amount to Hadibandhu Mahanta. The accused himself gave evidence in Court and alleged the circumstances in which, the accused Sarpanch made the payment to Hadibandhu Mahanta. The material portion of the evidence of the accused Sarpanch is this before we prepared and submitted the budget for the year we made advances for execution of urgent projects after discussion in Panchayat meeting. Usually we made advances to Ward Members for execution of projects. In case the budget was not approved we took refund of the advances. Hadibandhu Mahanta was accordingly advanced Rs. 1200 for supply of asbestos sheets for construction of Panchayat Office...I obtained vouchers from them and mentioned the advances in the cash book. 2. Hadibandhu executed voucher and asked me to keep the amount with me as he had none (means no other member) in his house. It was settled that myself and Hadibandhu would go to Tata to purchase asbestos as he bad no idea about asbestos. In defence the accused Sarpanch also relied on a certain resolution at a. Gram Panchayat meeting Ext. 6 in support of his case that the expenses under several vouchers including the Voucher No. 17 being receipt Ext. 5 for the sum of Rs. 12001 shown to have been advanced to Hadibandhu Mahanta were discussed and approved at the meeting in which Hadibandhu Mahanta himself as Ward Member was present and signed the resolution. This in substance is the defence case. 4. Is the defence version probable? The evidence of P.W. 8 Hadibandhu Mahanta supported by the evidence of the handwriting expert P.W. 3 shows that the receipt Ext. 5 was forged. If the receipt Ext. 5 was forged then the alleged payment to P.W. 8 Hadibandhu Mahanta stands disproved. 5. The accused Sarpanch strongly relied on the resolution at the Panchayat meeting dated August 26, 1960 Ext. 6 purporting to show that the alleged payment of Rs. 5 was forged. If the receipt Ext. 5 was forged then the alleged payment to P.W. 8 Hadibandhu Mahanta stands disproved. 5. The accused Sarpanch strongly relied on the resolution at the Panchayat meeting dated August 26, 1960 Ext. 6 purporting to show that the alleged payment of Rs. 1200 - to Hadibandhu Mahanta under Voucher No. 17 was discussed and approved at the said meeting where Hadibandhu Mahanta was present. The resolution however does not on the face of it show that Hadibandhu Mahanta knew that the said sum of Rs. 1200 - had been shown as paid to him. There is nothing to show that Hadibandhu Mahanta knew about what Voucher No. 17 referred to in the resolution was. In fact, this was not put to Hadibandhu by the defence when he was examined as P.W. 8. Therefore no adverse inference can be drawn from the resolution merely because he had signed it. Apart from the question of admissibility, there is nothing on the face of the resolution to show that the sum of Rs. 120 was paid to Hadibandhu Mahanta. In fact the accused himself as d.w. 1 while deposing in Court admitted that no resolution was made about the advance to Hadibandhu Mahanta bat the accused Sarpanch himself in Court said was this I did not hand over Rs. 1200 - to Hadibandhu. The advance was made to avoid lapse of Government grant and Panchayat cash lapsed on the 31st March. No resolution was made about the advance to Hadibandhu. Evidently the learned Sessions Judge lost sight of this aspect. 6. That apart, the circumstances which make the defence story improbable are these In a statement made by the accused before the District Magistrate P.W. 7 on October 17, 1960 Ext. 19 the accused admitted that he had not paid the sum 1 of Rs. 12001 to Hadibandhu Mahanta and that he had kept the money with him. The accused took the plea that the money was shown to have been paid to Hadibandhu Mahanta with a view to having it sanctioned in the budget. In view of the forgery found, this explanation cannot be accepted. Evidently the real object of showing payment to Hadibandhu Mahanta was to keep the money with the accused and it was with that intention that a false receipt was forged and a false entry was made in the account book. In view of the forgery found, this explanation cannot be accepted. Evidently the real object of showing payment to Hadibandhu Mahanta was to keep the money with the accused and it was with that intention that a false receipt was forged and a false entry was made in the account book. 7. Whatever may be the accused?s plea that this was by way of a device for budget sanction, the fact remains that a false document was forged for the purpose of persuading the authorities to sanction the money. As per the forged receipt Ext. 5 and the entry in the account book Ext. 7 a sum of Rs. 1200 - is shown to have been paid to Hadibandhu Mahanta as early as on June 26, 1960. The District Magistrate inspected on August 23, 1960 and reported that the dealings of the Sarpanch with regard to Gram Panchayat cash and kind were not above board and that the Sarpanch was spending the Gram Panchayat cash without authority and without producing vouchers which it was difficult to accept since their veracity was doubtful. Thereafter the accused is said to have deposited the money in the bank in September, 1960. Therefore, it was not until after three months from the taking of the money that it is said to have been redeposit in the bank. By then the criminal act of misappropriation of the money on forged receipt and by making false entry had already been committed. 8. It is also significant that although the entire device fizzled out, there is no credit entry for the amount in the account book. There is nothing to show that the amount has come back to the till of the Gram Panchayat. The accused who examined himself as d.w. 1 however said that on August 23, 1960 the District Magistrate who came to inspect the Panchayat asked him to take refund of the illegal advances to Hadibandhu Mahanta and others that so he (accused, took refund of the advances and mentioned the amount in the account book. In the account book however there is no such entry as mentioned by the accused. When further cross-examined the accused appears to have sought to explain that the new Sarpanch did not make any entry after he took charge of the account book. The accused Sarpanch admitted that the sum of Rs. In the account book however there is no such entry as mentioned by the accused. When further cross-examined the accused appears to have sought to explain that the new Sarpanch did not make any entry after he took charge of the account book. The accused Sarpanch admitted that the sum of Rs. 1200 - advanced to Hadibandhu Mahanta was with the accused. He admitted that he did not hand over the money to Hadibandhu Mahanta. 9. In this context the evidence of Hadibandhu Mahanta himself as P.W. 8 is material. He said that the District Magistrate ascertained from him that he (Hadibandhu Mahanta) did not take the money and that he did not grant the receipt when the District Magistrate confronted him with the voucher Ext. 5, he (p.w. 8) learnt that a voucher was forged in his name that he did not receive any notice to refund Rs. 1200 - from anybody. P.W. 8 further said that he was requested by the accused to depose in Court that he took the money that the accused Sarpanch also approached him through his men to depose to this effect that he (p.w. 8) told that he would not depose falsely to support the accused. 10. What primarily weighed with the learned Sessions Judge in acquitting the accused was the resolution at the Gram Panchayat meeting on August 26 1960 Ext. 6. His finding on this point is this it appears from the resolution dated 26.8.1960 (vide Ext. 6) that this voucher (bearing No. 17) was placed in the meeting and was approved. Hadibandhu Mahanta has signed this resolution. If the expenditure under the voucher was discussed and approved in his presence, it cannot be said that be did not receive the amount in question. His evidence that he came to know about the voucher (Ext. 5) for the first time when be was confronted with it by the District Magistrate cannot be believed. In view of the resolution dated 26.8.1960 (Ext. 6) it must be held that the voucher (Ext. 5) was created with the knowledge of all the members of the Panchayat What apparently the learned Sessions Judge missed was the fact that the voucher Ext. 5 itself was found to have been forged and further that. Hadibandhu Mahanta P.W. 8 himself denied having received the money. 6) it must be held that the voucher (Ext. 5) was created with the knowledge of all the members of the Panchayat What apparently the learned Sessions Judge missed was the fact that the voucher Ext. 5 itself was found to have been forged and further that. Hadibandhu Mahanta P.W. 8 himself denied having received the money. There is nothing in evidence to fix Hadibandhu Mahanta with the knowledge of the alleged payment of Rs. 1200 - to him for the purpose as mentioned in the receipt Ext. 5. It is to be noticed that voucher No. 17 has been mentioned along with other vouchers (voucher Numbers 18 and 20) showing total expenses of the sum of Rs. 2160. No question was put to Hadibandhu Mahanta P.W. 8 on behalf of the defence regarding the contents of the minutes of the Panchayat meeting containing the resolution dated August 26, 1960 Ext. 6. Thus no opportunity was given to Hadibandhu Mahanta to explain the position. In the absence of such opportunity having been given to him, this resolution-referring to among other vouchers, voucher No. 17 (receipt Ext. 5) which was found to be a forged document-does not help the accused. The inference which the learned Sessions Judge had drawn from the resolution is not correct. In our opinion his conclusions are based on surmises and not on evidence. 11. In the ultimate analysis, therefore, the position is this the accused had admittedly received the money. The onus of the accused having paid the money to Hadibandhu Mahanta P.W. 8 was on the accused. The onus on the accused, though not as stringent as that on the prosecution, was still there on the accused, as in a civil proceeding. The accused has not succeeded in proving the payment to P.W. 8 Hadibandhu Mahanta. In view of the finding of forgery of the receipt Ext. 5 as established by the evidence of the handwriting expert P.W. 3 and the evidence of Hadibandhu Mahanta P.W. 8 the defence story turns out to be false. Assuming the money was subsequently refunded and assuming that the accused had redeposit it in the bank after three months, even so it amounts to misappropriation of the money though temporarily. 12. 5 as established by the evidence of the handwriting expert P.W. 3 and the evidence of Hadibandhu Mahanta P.W. 8 the defence story turns out to be false. Assuming the money was subsequently refunded and assuming that the accused had redeposit it in the bank after three months, even so it amounts to misappropriation of the money though temporarily. 12. In this view of the case the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge in reversal of the decision of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge cannot be sustained. The accused-Respondent Bidyadhar Rout is convicted under Sections 409, 471 read with Sections 467 and 477-A, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for two years for the offence u/s 409, imprisonment for one and a half years for the offence u/s 471 read with Section 467 and imprisonment for one year for the offence u/s 477-A of the Indian Penal Code all the sentences to run concurrently. The Government Appeal is accordingly allowed. Misra, J. 13. I agree. Final Result : Allowed