Judgment :- 1. The petitioner in this case was convicted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Alwaye for offences under S.409 & 477-A, I.P.C. & has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 2 months under S.409 and to rigorous imprisonment for 1 month under S.477-A I. P. C. 2. The accused was a 'Muthalpidi' or agent of Thiruvarppu Kizhakke Madom for collecting rents due to the Madom from the tenants. In his capacity as the agent he was supplied with printed receipt books containing both receipts and duplicates from which the accused has to issue receipts to the tenants and preserve the duplicates. The duplicates are underneath each receipt and are meant to be carbon copies of the original. The receipts are serially numbered. Ext. P-1 is one of such receipt books. There is no dispute that the receipt was entrusted to the accused. The accused has also to maintain a Nalvazhi account and Ext. P-3 is the Nalvazhi books. 3. On 22.10.59 Pw.2 a tenant of the Madom paid the accused 9 paras 5 edangazhies and 8 veesoms of paddy and Rs. 3.70 nP., in cash on account of the rent due to the Madom. The accused is seen to have issued a receipt Ext. P-2 from Ext. P-1 receipt book. It is dated 2210 59. This amount was not brought into the Nalvazhi account Ext. P-3 till 25.11.1959 and on that date what is seen to have been entered is a receipt of a sum of Rs. 21-60 nP. calculating paddy value at Rs.1.14 as., and adding Rs.3.70 nP. which had been paid in cash. Ext P-3 (b) in Ext. P-3 is the relevant entry. Ext. P-2(a) is the duplicate receipt which bears the date 26.11.59 as against Ext- P-2 which is dated 22.10.59. Instead of writing the quantity of paddy received and the cash received separately the accused entered the money value of the paddy as in Ext. P-3 (a). The prosecution case is that the accused misappropriated the paddy and the money between 22.10.59 and 25 1159 and falsified the entries in the duplicate Ext. P2 (a) and Nalvazhi. There was another head of charge which was found against. 4. The case of the accused was that rent was paid by the tenants not in paddy but in money and about the discrepancy in the dates he stated that he does not remember the details. P2 (a) and Nalvazhi. There was another head of charge which was found against. 4. The case of the accused was that rent was paid by the tenants not in paddy but in money and about the discrepancy in the dates he stated that he does not remember the details. He would, however, say that a false case has been filed against him because of enmity between him and Pw.l. The case of the accused that he had been authorised to collect rent at the rate of Re.1.14 a para has been accepted by the learned Magistrate, but he is found guilty of temporary misappropriation in that having received the paddy or the money on 22.10.59 he failed to credit the amount in the accounts till 25.10.59 and during the period converted the money to his own use. Learned counsel appearing for the accused strenuously contended that there is no rule enjoining the accused to enter the amount received on the very same day it is received, that the accused is the person who had to keep the collections with him and that mere retention of money would not amount to misappropriation. 5. Learned Sessions Judge has referred to the decision in Krishnan Kumar v. Union of India (A. I. R.1959 S. C. 1390). As stated there it is not necessary or possible in every case to prove in what precise manner the accused person has dealt with or misappropriated the goods of his master. The question is one of intention and not a matter of direct proof but giving a false account of what he has done with the goods received by him may be treated as a strong circumstance against him. In the case of a servant charged with misappropriating the goods of his master the elements of criminal offence of misappropriation will be established if the prosecution proves that the servant received the goods, that he was under a duty to account to his master and had not done so. If the failure to account was due to an accidental loss then the facts being within the servant's knowledge it is for him to explain the loss. It is not the law of this country that the prosecution has to eliminate all possible defences or circumstances which may exonerate him. If these facts are within the knowledge of the accused then he has to prove them. It is not the law of this country that the prosecution has to eliminate all possible defences or circumstances which may exonerate him. If these facts are within the knowledge of the accused then he has to prove them. Of course, the prosecution has to establish a prima facie case in the first instance. It is not enough to establish facts which give rise to a suspicion and then by reason of S.106 of the Evidence Act to throw the onus on him to prove his innocence. 6. Here in this case the intention to falsify and misappropriate is evident. He received on 22.10.59 paddy in kind or its equivalent value in cash. It was his duty as the agent of the Madom to enter the receipts in the day to day accounts of the Madom. He has failed to do so. The dishonest intention is proved, because in the receipt granted to the tenant he has shown the date of receipt as 22.10.59, but did not fill up the duplicate receipt. Liter in the duplicate receipt which alone will be there to check up the accounts, he showed the date of receipt as 25.11.59 and he entered the receipt of the amount in the Nalvazhi on that day. I could have understood the case of receipts being granted on the same date, but failure to bring it into account on that day. It would then have been open to the accused to contend that there is only mere retention and failure to enter was due to forget fullness. Here intention to misappropriate can be inferred from the fact that the accused granted the receipt without the duplicate being filled in. If under the law it is not necessary or possible for the prosecution to prove the manner in which the goods have been misappropriated and the question is only one of intention the circumstances which have been set out do show that the appellant in what he has done or omitted to do was moved by a guilty mind. In my opinion the petitioner has been rightly convicted by the courts below. The sentence cannot be said to be excessive. The result is the condition and the sentence are confirmed and the revision petition is dismissed. Dismissed.