JUDGMENT : Narasimham, C.J. - This is a revision petition against the appellate judgment of the Sessions Judge of Sambalpur-Sundergarh maintaining the conviction of the Petitioner u/s 409, Indian Penal Code and the sentences of imprisonment and fine passed on him by the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Panposh. 2. The Petitioner was the Sarpanch of Kuermunda Grama Panchayat from the year 1957 till 2-8-1963. In that capacity he was in charge of the cash of the Panchayat though the accounts used to be maintained by the Panchayat Secretary (p.w. 3). The Supervisor of the Grama Panchayat (p.w. 2) audited the accounts of the Panchayat on three dates, namely, 18-2-1960, 25-4-1960 and 29-7-1960. On the date of the first audit he found that the cash on hand was short to the extent, of Rs. 1609.86 nP. when checked with reference to the book balance. The Petitioner was unable to produce the cash but at the next audit date, viz., 19-2-1960 he gave a statement in writing (ext. 7) to the effect that he spent the money for other purposes and that he would deposit the amount within fifteen days. Again, on the date of the second audit, viz, 25-4-1960 there was shortage of cash to the extent of Rs. 4405.03 nP. On this occasion also the Sarpanch was unable to produce the money but he gave a statement in writing (ext. 8) saying that he spent the money for other purposes and that he would require 15 days time to collect the funds and deposit the same. The third audit actually commenced on 1-7-1960 and continued till 28-7-1960. It was eventually found that though the book balance was shown as Rs. 7184.01 nP. the actual cash on hand was Rs. 1621.10 nP. as shown in the postal pass book, revealing a shortage of Rs. 5562.91 nP. This amount also was not produced, but on the next date, viz., 29-7-1960 the Petitioner gave a statement in writing (ext. 3) admitting that the said sum was in his hands and praying for some time to produce the same. He further admitted in his statement that the first shortage of Rs. 1609.86 nP. as noticed in the audit that took place on 18-2-1960, was due to his having spent the money for private purposes. 3) admitting that the said sum was in his hands and praying for some time to produce the same. He further admitted in his statement that the first shortage of Rs. 1609.86 nP. as noticed in the audit that took place on 18-2-1960, was due to his having spent the money for private purposes. Some time was given to him to pay the money but he failed to pay the money, and then a report was sent to the Police on the basis of which the case was investigated. 3. The Petitioner's explanation was that he spent the money for executing some contract works on behalf of the Panchayat under the supervision of the Block Development Officer and that he had actually submitted a series of, vouchers (exts. A to G) to the Block Development Officer showing the works done and the sums spent. These vouchers contain an endorsement and a certificate of the Block Development Officer dated 11-10-1960 and 12-10-1960, showing clearly that the Block Development Officer after personal check on the spot was satisfied that the work done was worth the amounts specified by him in the certificate in respect of each voucher. If the sums as estimated by the Block Development Officer in those vouchers are added up, it would appear that work to the extent of Rs. 5566/-had in fact been completed by the Petitioner and given a certificate to that effect by the Block Development Officer in October, 1960. But the vouchers (exts. A to G) show that the works were actually executed sometime between 1-6-1960 and 26-6-1960 -prior to the third audit. 4. The charge against the Petitioner related to the offence of criminal breach of trusting respect of the sum of Rs. 5562.91 nP. after the shortage was noticed on the date of the third audit, viz., 20.7-1960. Admittedly this sum was entrusted to the Petitioner and he must give a reasonable explanation to account for the same. It is true that the cash book did not show how this money was actually spent and it is also true that in his three statements to the auditor (exts. 7, 8 and 3) he had taken the plea that the money was with him and that he would account for it. In ext. 3 he further admitted that the shortage of Rs. 7, 8 and 3) he had taken the plea that the money was with him and that he would account for it. In ext. 3 he further admitted that the shortage of Rs. 1600/- and odd noticed on the date of the first audit was due to his having spent the money for his own private purposes. As regards the shortage of Rs. 5562.91 nP. notice an the date of the third audit he did not give any explanation. But as the charge did not relate to that shortage found on the first occasion, (which amount was actually shown in the post office pass book on the date on the third audit), I need, not examine here whether there was a temporary criminal breach of trust in respect of that sum on the Petitioner's admission that the money was utilised for his own private purposes. I am concerned here only with the simple question as to whether the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that there was criminal breach of trust in respect of the admitted shortage of Rs. 5562.91 nP. on the date of the third audit, namely, 29-7-1960. 5. If the vouchers (exts. A to G) are taken as genuine, documents showing the actual sums expended in execution of the works on behalf of the Panchayat the Petitioner's explanation must be accepted. The lower appellate Court, however, thought that these vouchers would not suffice to explain away the Petitioners conduct because they were not produced on the earliest occasion and the Petitioner in his written explanation before the audit party (ext. 3) did not say that he had spent the money for Panchayat work and submitted the relevant voucher to the Block Development Officer for being checked and passed. It is true that the conduct of the Petitioner in not immediately pointing out to the authorities concerned the existence of these vouchers and the fact that he spent the money for Panchayat purposes is a circumstance against him which would ordinarily have thrown Borne doubt on the genuineness of these vouchers. But I find that the vouchers show that a responsible officer like the Block Development Officer has certified that works to the value of Rs. 5556/- had been executed, which is equivalent to the total sums alleged to have been misappropriated by the Petitioner. The shortage of Rs. 6.91 nP. But I find that the vouchers show that a responsible officer like the Block Development Officer has certified that works to the value of Rs. 5556/- had been executed, which is equivalent to the total sums alleged to have been misappropriated by the Petitioner. The shortage of Rs. 6.91 nP. may be ignored, because the estimate given by the Block Development Officer is only approximate. 6. The lower appellate Court does not appear to have appreciated fully the evidence of the Block Development Officer in this respect. He thought that those vouchers (exts. A to G) referred to some other contracts which the Petitioner might have executed in this personal capacity but such an inference was not justified by the evidence on record. The vouchers to show that they dealt with contracts executed on behalf of the Panchayat and the Block Development Officer also, while admitting the genuineness of the certificates and the vouchers in cross-examination, has not stated that they related to some other works executed by the Petitioner in his private capacity. His entire evidence shows that the works in relation to which the vouchers (exts. A to G) were produced, were executed by the Petitioner on behalf of the Panchayat. The vouchers were found in the file of the Panchayat. Under these circumstances though the conduct of the Petitioner in not immediately informing the authorities concerned about the execution of the works as shown in the the vouchers may lead to some suspicion that they were perhaps prepared subsequently, nevertheless, as they contained certificates from the Block Development Officer to the effect that works of a value equivalent to the sums alleged to have been misappropriated, had, in fact, been done by the Petitioner in connection with some Panchayat projects, considerable doubt arises as to whether the Petitioner's action was dishonest or whether this is a simple case of gross negligence on his part in not maintaining the accounts properly, His explanation that the money was actually spent for Panchayat work, though not properly shown in the cash book and other account books, might probably be true and and he is entitled to the benefit of doubt. For these reasons, I allow this revision petition, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquit the Petitioner. Petition allowed on benefit of doubt. Final Result : Allowed