JUDGMENT : Das, J. - The Petitioner has been convicted u/s 409, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one month, and to pay a fine of Rs. 200- in default to undergo R.I. for 15 days. He has also been convicted u/s 477-A, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one month, by an appellate order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The Petitioner was working as a Sub-postmaster in the High Court Sub-post office at Cuttack sometime from 1957 -59. P.W. 3, Prahallad Kar, an advocate of this Court, has a Saving Bank account No. 86392 in the said sub-post office. It is the case of the prosecution that on 17-8-1959, P.W. 3 entrusted a sum of Rs. 160- to the accused-Petitioner along with the passbook, Ext. 2 for deposit. The accused made relevant entries in the Savings Bank account and returned the pass-book to P.W. 3. Under the postal rules and as a part of his duty, the accused had to make corresponding entries in the Savings Bank Journal (ext. 3) on the date of deposit, but he instead of making any, entry on that date, viz., 17-8-1959 when he was entrusted with the money, showed the sum on 27-8-1959 and during this period he made temporary misappropriation of the said sum of Rs. 160-. In course of verification of the savings bank account, this was detected by the Inspector of Post Offices. The accused was accordingly prosecuted u/s 409 for breach of trust and u/s 477-A, Indian Penal Code for falsification of accounts. 3. The accused admits that he was entrusted on 17-8-1959 a sum of Rs. 160- by P.W. 3 for making deposit in his savings bank account. But his plea is that on account of pressure of work he could not make the deposit on that day. At a bout 4-30 p.m. on that day P.W. 3 went to the post office and took back the money and the passbook from -him. In other words his plea was that even if he was entrusted with the sum, it was returned to the depositor on the same day. The courts below rejected this plea as fantastic and convicted the accused as above. 4. It appears from the Savings Bank Account that a sum of Rs. In other words his plea was that even if he was entrusted with the sum, it was returned to the depositor on the same day. The courts below rejected this plea as fantastic and convicted the accused as above. 4. It appears from the Savings Bank Account that a sum of Rs. 160- was in fact entered in the pass-book, Ext. 2, on 17 -8-1959. If in fact, the money was returned to the depositor on that very day, there was no necessity for making any such entry. It further appears that P.W. 3 also made two other deposits between 17-8-1959 and 27-8-1959, that is, a sum of Rs. 60- was deposited on 19-8-1959 and a similar amount was deposited on 24-8-1959. Both these sums were duly shown in the Savings Bank Account as also in the Savings Bank Journal. It further appears that after the deposit on 24-8-1959, the amount of total deposit was shown to be Rs. 322.62 which included the sum of Rs. 160- deposited by P.W. 3 on 17-8-1959. Thus, the plea of the accused that the sum of Rs. 160- was returned to the depositor (p.w. 3) on 17.8.1959 must be rejected as false. Moreover, no suggestion was made to P.W. 3 in course of his evidence that he was given back the sum of Rs. 160- on 17-8-1959. The plea of pressure of work advanced by the accused cannot also be accepted. It is in evidence that an error-book is maintained in r each post office wherein mention of any mistake or error committed in course of the transaction is made and such a book was also maintained in the post-office in question. But the accused has no where made any mention of any such error, if in fact he committed any. His plea, however, is that there is another error book, but he is not sure whether he had made any such entry in the said book. In his 342 statement he took an evasive plea that he might have made such an entry in the said book. In any event, it was for him to call for that document and to bring to the notice of the Court if any such entry was recorded by him in any error-book. He took the bold plea that he returned the sum of Rs. In any event, it was for him to call for that document and to bring to the notice of the Court if any such entry was recorded by him in any error-book. He took the bold plea that he returned the sum of Rs. 160- to P.W. 3 on the same day and his further plea was that P.W. 3 after taking back the money on 17 -8-1959 again sent the amount on 25-8-1959, but with a wrong pass-book and the following day being a holiday, he entered the amount only on 27-8-1959. But nothing was elicited from P.W. 3 on this point and it is difficult to accept that a wrong pass-book was given by P.W. 3 for making deposit of the amount. The plea of the accused on this point also is wholly false and cannot be accepted. Thus, it must be held that the accused was entrusted with a sum of Rs. 160- for deposit on 17 -8-1959, and he committed temporary misappropriation of the said amount until 27-8-1959. 5. It was contended on behalf of the Petitioner that there was no proof of any dishonest intention on the part of the Petitioner and the mistake was purely a bona fide one. This contention, however, can be hardly accepted. The accused deliberately put forth a false plea which could not be sustained in view of the evidence in the case. It is well-settled that to establish a charge of criminal breach of trust, the prosecution is not obliged to prove the precise mode of conversion or the misapplication by the accused of the property entrusted to him. The principal ingredient of the offence being dishonest misappropriation or conversion which may not ordinarily be a matter of direct proof, entrustment of the property and failure in breach of an obligation to account for the property entrusted if proved, may, in the light of other circumstances justifiably lead to an inference of dishonest misappropriation or conversion. Where the accused is unable to account, or renders an explanation for his failure to account, which is untrue, an inference of misappropriation with dishonest intention may be readily made Jaikrishnadas Manohardas Desai and Another Vs. The State of Bombay. The accused has been rightly convicted u/s 409 Indian Penal Code. 6. Where the accused is unable to account, or renders an explanation for his failure to account, which is untrue, an inference of misappropriation with dishonest intention may be readily made Jaikrishnadas Manohardas Desai and Another Vs. The State of Bombay. The accused has been rightly convicted u/s 409 Indian Penal Code. 6. It was contended that an offence u/s 477-A, Indian Penal Code has not been made out, that is, the entry made in the Savings Bank Journal (ext. 3) on 27-8-1959 cannot be said to be a falsification of accounts as it was not made with a view to defraud, but rather to make good the sum of Rs. 160- with which the accused was entrusted on 17-8-1959. This contention is wholly fallacious. It is clear from the evidence that no deposit was made by P.W. 3 on 27-8-1959 and thus the entry made on that day does not represent the correct state of transaction, but was falsely made in Ext. 3, with a view to conceal the transaction made on 17-8-1959. It is well-settled by authorities that if the intention with which a false document is made to conceal a fraudulent or dishonest act which has been previously committed, that intention could not be anything but a intention to commit a fraud. The concealment of an already committed fraud, is itself a fraud and a man who deliberately makes a false document, in order to conceal a fraud already committed by him, undoubtedly acts with an intention to commit fraud by making a false document, as he intends the party concerned to believe that no fraud has been committed. Falsification of account to cover a breach of trust comes within the mischief of Section 477A, wether that falsification relates to an immediate or remote commission of the breach of trust: See R.K. Dalmia Vs. Delhi Administration. The contention of the learned Counsel that no case u/s 477-A has been made out, must therefore be rejected. The conviction of the Petitioner under this section must accordingly be maintained. 7. With respect to the sentence, it does not appear to be severe. Delhi Administration. The contention of the learned Counsel that no case u/s 477-A has been made out, must therefore be rejected. The conviction of the Petitioner under this section must accordingly be maintained. 7. With respect to the sentence, it does not appear to be severe. In view of the fact, however, that the offence was a temporary misappropriation of a small amount and the accused has been tried in a large number of cases, I would direct that the sentence would run concurrently with the sentences passed in the other five analogous criminal revisions Nos. 124 to 128 of 1965. The sentence of fine and the default sentence will however stand. The revision is accordingly dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed