JUDGMENT : Narasimham, C.J. - This is a revision petition against the appellate judgment of the Sessions Judge of Bolangir, maintaining the conviction of the Petitioner u/s 381. Indian Penal Code and the sentence of 18 months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/- passed on him by a First Class Magistrate of Titilagarh. 2. The Petitioner was working as Cashier-cum-Accountant of the Khariar. Block under one Shri B.K. Samantarai (p.w. 5) who was the Block Development Officer of that area in 1958. As a large amount of cash was handled by the Blook Development Officer he -was required to maintain a main cash book (ext. 4) and 22 subsidiary cash books (exts. 5 to 26). The entries in all these cash books were made by the Petitioner in his capacity as Cashier cum Accountant; and the Block Development Officer also used to sign the main cash book every day, and also periodically verify the actual cash in the Block Officer with the cash as noted in the main and subsidiary cash books. The cash was mainly kept in a big iron chest in one of the rooms of the Block office, and, was embedded in the wall of the room. The bunch of keys of this chest was kept with the Block Development Officer, the duplicate set of the keys being kept in Nawapara. Sub Treasury. There was also a small iron chest in the same room the key of which was kept with the Petitioner. In this small iron chest the Petitioner used to keep cash handed over to him by the Block Development Officer daily in respect of small transactions. This small chest was kept connected to the big chest by an iron chain. The Block Development Officer's evidence was to the effect that he, the Petitioner, and the Head-clerk (p.w. 2) were working in the office till about 9 p.m. on 14-12-1958 and due to overstrain, he while leaving the office through sight left the bunch of keys of the big iron chest on his table and returned to his quarters. At that time the Petitioner was in the Block office. At that time the Petitioner was in the Block office. The Block Development Officer noticed the missing of the key bunch only on the next day at about 7-30 a.m. and after consulting the Head-clerk he questioned the Petitioner who handed over the key bunch to him saying that he had taken it from his table where it had been kept the previous night. The Block Development Officer then hurried to the Block office and verified the actual cash in the big iron chest and found it to be only Rs. 89848.97 nP.; whereas the cash as shown in the cash book, as closing balance on the previous day, namely, 14-12-1958 was Rs. 1, 13, 857.75 nP. There was thus a shortage of Rs. 24008.77 nP. which according to him must have been taken away by some culprit with the help of the keys left by him in the office. While the counting was going on 15-12-1958, the Petitioner's conduct was very suspicious and as soon as the shortage was detected the Petitioner was said to have admitted before the Block Development Officer that he had given it to some friends and further promised to return the money as soon as possible. But the Block Developments Officer took care to obtain from the Petitioner a confession in writing (ext. 1) admitting having taken the money from the cash chest of the Block office. The Petitioner also subsequently handed over to the Block Development Officer a sum of Rs. 3500.00 nP. that evening and the receipt of the sum was also duly recorded in writing (ext. 2) signed by several witnesses of the Block office. On the next day, viz., 16-12-1958 at about 3 p. m. the Petitioner paid a further sum of Rs. 1309/- (ext. 3) and also gave a written statement to that effect. The Petitioner did not pay up the balance and then the Block Development Officer lodged a regular F.I.R. at 9 p.m. (ext. 13) at Khariar Police Station enclosing along with his F.I.R. exts. 1, 2 and 3. 3. Thus the prosecution case is that taking advantage of the mistake committed by the Block Development Officer in leaving the bunch of keys in the office, the Petitioner opened the big chest and abstracted the aforesaid sum of Rs. 24,100/- and odd. 13) at Khariar Police Station enclosing along with his F.I.R. exts. 1, 2 and 3. 3. Thus the prosecution case is that taking advantage of the mistake committed by the Block Development Officer in leaving the bunch of keys in the office, the Petitioner opened the big chest and abstracted the aforesaid sum of Rs. 24,100/- and odd. Though there is no eye-witness to the commission of the offence and watchman of the Block office, Viswanath Sahu (p.w. 1) whose duty was to watch the office during nights, deposed to the effect that after the departure of the Block Development Officer and the Head-clerk (p.w. 2) when he was about to close the rooms, he saw the Petitioner in the room where the big chest was kept and also noticed that both the chests were opened and the Petitioner was actual handling the cash. In cross-examination he frankly admitted that he did not see the Petitioner actually taking the cash from the big iron chest. But the evidence of this witness, if believed, would be a very strong piece of evidence to show that the Petitioner had abstracted cash from the chest, in the Bight of 14-12-1958 with the help of the bunch of keys left by the Block Development Officer. 4. A part from the evidence of the watchman, the prosecution has also relied on the admission of guilt by the Petitioner before the Block Development Officer made in ext. 1, his conduct in paying a portion of the misappropriated money in two installments by exts. 2 and 3 and his own suspicious conduct when the money was being counted by the Block Development Officer in the morning of the 15th December 1938. As the Block Development Officer was then not a Magistrate the written confession (ext. 1) handed over to him by the Petitioner would be admissible, and will not be affected by the principle laid down in AIR 1936 P.O. 253 reiterated by the Supreme Court in Suleman Issa Vs. The State of Bombay, regarding the necessity of a Magistrate complying with the strict requirements of Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure. 1) handed over to him by the Petitioner would be admissible, and will not be affected by the principle laid down in AIR 1936 P.O. 253 reiterated by the Supreme Court in Suleman Issa Vs. The State of Bombay, regarding the necessity of a Magistrate complying with the strict requirements of Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure. Moreover though some suggestions were made nothing has been brought out to show that when the Petitioner gave this written confession to the Block Development Officer there was any inducement, threat or promise held out to him by to Officer though he was undoubtedly a person in authority. It is true that the confession was subsequently retracted and hence would require adequate corroboration. The best corroboration is found in the conduct of the Petitioner in returning a portion of the money in two installments (ext. 2 and 3). Ext. 3 written in his own hand. These documents, coupled with the evidence of the Block Development Officer (p.w. 5) his Head-clerk (p.w. 2) and two other members of the Block office (p.ws. 3 and 4) and that of the watchman (p.w. 1) are sufficient to fix the guilt of the Petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. 5. It was urged that immoveable irregularities were being committed in the Block office for several months prior to the present incident, that the Block Development Officer was also a party to the same and that with a view to conceal his own mistakes, he compelled the Petitioner to confess his guilt and persuaded the other members of the staff to depose against him. I am however not prepared to accept such a wild suggestion against a gazetted officer of the rank of Block Development Officer unless there are clear materials on record to show that his conduct was blame worthy. It is true that the audit reports texts. A, B, D, and E) which do not relate to the period in question) show that certain irregularities had been committed in the maintenance of the cash books and other records. The Head-clerk has also admitted frankly that though the subsidiary cash books were maintained properly, the main cash book (ext. 4) was written only from the 1st or 2nd of December 1958 and that the previous entries contained therein were written later and antedated. The Head-clerk has also admitted frankly that though the subsidiary cash books were maintained properly, the main cash book (ext. 4) was written only from the 1st or 2nd of December 1958 and that the previous entries contained therein were written later and antedated. There is also some evidence to show that certain sums were being advanced by the Petitioner on authority slips issued by the Block Development Officer. But there is no evidence that these sums had anything to do with the money kept in the Block Office. All the cash books, main and subsidiary, were maintained by the Petitioner and the entries therein were made in his own hand, and if any sums out of the Block funds had been given by him on the authority of the Block Development officer to other persons, there was no reason why he did not make corresponding entries, to that effect, in the Cash Book. 6. It was then contended that there was no direct evidence to show that the amount of cash in the chest in the evening of 14-12-1958 was actually Rs. 1,13,857.75 nP. so as to lead to an in consistable conclusion that the missing sum of Rs. 24000/- and odd must have been misappropriated during the night of the 15th December 1958. It is true that the Block Development Officer did not verify the cash in the evening of 14th December 1958, but the entry of that date, written by the Petitioner in his own hand shows that the closing balance of that date was Rs. 1,13,857,75 nP. Moreover, the evidence of the Block Development Officer is to the effect that he had actually verified the cash on 28-11-1958. The fact of actual verification made on that day is not noted in the main Cash Book, but is noted in all the subsidiary cash books. From that day till 14-12-1958 all the entries in the cash books are in the handwriting of the Petitioner and all transactions have been duly entered therein. In the absence of any further material, it would be reasonable to hold that the closing balance on 14-12-1938 as shown in the cash book, correctly represented the actual cash in the iron chest on that date and that a shortage of Rs. 24000/- was noticed when verification was made on the next morning by the Block Development Officer. In the absence of any further material, it would be reasonable to hold that the closing balance on 14-12-1938 as shown in the cash book, correctly represented the actual cash in the iron chest on that date and that a shortage of Rs. 24000/- was noticed when verification was made on the next morning by the Block Development Officer. The recovery of the bunch of keys of the iron chest from the person of the Petitioner on 15-12-1958 is another important incriminating circumstance against him. Hence unless one is prepared to go to the length of saying that the Block Development Officer and his subordinate Officers have (sic) the perjure on oath with a view to entangle the Petitioner in this criminal case, there is no (sic) from the conclusion that the charge has been brought home. The to courts of fact have believed the prosecution witnesses, and having gone through the evidence on record myself I am not prepared to reject the testimony of a responsible officer like the Block Development Officer (p.w. 5) merely because some irregularities in accounting committed on certain previous occasions, had been brought to light in the audit report. If, as now suggested by the learned Court for the Petitioner, the Block Development Officer was the real culprit, it was highly unlikely that the Petitioner would not have complained against him before his superior officers like the Sub-divisional Officer of Khariar or the District Magistrate who came there subsequently on receiving intimation about this incident. In his statement u/s 342 Code of Criminal Procedure the Petitioner has completely denied the allegations made against, him but did not state that he complained about the conduct of the Block Development Officer, to his superior officers. Had he made such a statement the non examination of the Sub-divisional Officer or the District Magistrate may be open to unfavourable comment as urged by Mr. Kanungo for the Petitioner. 7. For these reasons I am satisfied that the guilt of the Petitioner has been established beyond reasonable doubt. It is true that the Petitioner is a young man aged 29 years, but considering the large amount of public money stolen I am not inclined to interfere with the sentence. The conviction and sentence are maintained and this revision petition is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed