JUDGMENT : Barman, J. - The Petitioner who was the Secretary of Co-operative Grain Gala at Buguda in the district of Ganjam was convicted by Magistrate 1st Class, Aska on a charge of alleged criminal breach of trust in respect of 74 bags 29 Kgs, out of the stock of chemical fertilisers said to be of the value of Rs. 3427.98 paise and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 11/2 years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1500/ - in default to rigorous imprisonment for three months more. The said conviction and sentences were confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam in appeal. The material facts on the basis of which the prosecution brought the charge against the accused Petitioner are stated hereunder. 2. There was a Co-operative Grain Gola at Buguda in the district of Ganjam of which p.w.1 was the President; there was a Board of Managing Directors consisting of 11 members. On June 8, 1961 the accused Petitioner was appointed as Secretary of the said Grain Gola and continued as such till September 9, 1962 when the alleged offence was detected. 3. The Grain Gola was also dealing in chemical fertilisers. It was bringing fertilisers from the Regional Marketing Co-operative Society at Bhanjanagar. One of the rooms of the said Grain Gola was being exclusively used for storing and selling such fertilisers. The key of the said room was stated to have been in the exclusive possession of the accused Petitioner; the Petitioner is said to have been entrusted with all the fertilisers for the purpose of storing and selling. 4. On April 1, 1962 there was a physical verification of the stock of fertilisers which was made by the then Agricultural Extension Officer, Buguda, in the presence of the President (p.w.1) and the accused-Secretary; in verification the book-balance tallied with actual stock of fertilisers in the Grain Gola. 5. Thereafter the accused was receiving stock from time to time from the Regional Marketing Co-operative Society, Bhanjanagar, and was selling the same. He was handing over the cash every day in the evening to the President p.w.1 at the close of the day's transaction. According to the rules the accused was to send monthly returns to the B.D.O., Buguda, duly signed by him and also by the President. The accused, however, did not send any monthly return from April 1, 1962 to September 2, 1962. According to the rules the accused was to send monthly returns to the B.D.O., Buguda, duly signed by him and also by the President. The accused, however, did not send any monthly return from April 1, 1962 to September 2, 1962. 6. On September 2, 1962 the accused Petitioner sent the monthly return Ext. 8 to the B.D.O. without taking the-signature of the President thereon which the accused should have done under the rules. 7. In the meantime the Village Level Worker p.w.9 wanted to verify the stock of fertilisers but the accused is said to have avoided the verification on various pleas. This roused suspicion. Accordingly, the Village Level Worker p.w.9 submitted a report on September 2, 1962 complaining that it was not possible for him to verify the stock as the accused was evading to give verification. On receipt of this report Ext. 14, the B.D.O. deputed the Village Level Officer p.w.3 and the Agricultural Extension Officer p.W.4 to verify the stock The verification continued from September 10, 1962 to September 12, 1962. A shortage of chemical fertilisers valued at Rs. 3427. 98 paise was found. The accused Petitioner is alleged to have admitted the shortage and given in writing on Ext. 4 that he was responsible for the same. 8. Thereafter the President of the Grain Gola p.w.1 sent a report Ext. 1 to the police. In due course after police investigation the accused was charged and put up for trial before the Magistrate who convicted and sentenced him and the learned Sessions Judge, in appeal, confirmed the order of conviction and sentences as aforesaid. K 9. The defence taken by the accused was, in substance, this: He denied entrustment to him of the stock of chemical fertilisers his case was that he was not in charge of the same; the accused denied that he kept the key of the fertiliser-room. His point was that during the working hours of the day he used to bring the key from the President and return it to him in the evening with cash after the close of the day's transaction. According to the accused, the President was in charge of the stock of fertilisers. In defence the accused pleaded that he was not responsible for the shortage and denied that he misappropriated the fertilisers as alleged. As regards the writing on Ext. According to the accused, the President was in charge of the stock of fertilisers. In defence the accused pleaded that he was not responsible for the shortage and denied that he misappropriated the fertilisers as alleged. As regards the writing on Ext. 4 purporting to admit his responsibility for the shortage the accused stated that he did it under coercion inasmuch as the accused was assaulted by the President p.w.1 and the Agricultural Extension Officer p.w.4; the accused said that the said statement on Ext. 4 was neither voluntary .nor true. On these grounds the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. 10. The undisputed facts are these: The accused was working as Secretary from June 8, 1961 to September 12, 1962; the chemical fertilisers were stored in a separate room in the Grain Gola; he was in charge of selling the fertilisers to the public and at the close of the day's transaction he was making over the sale proceeds in the evening to the President of the Grain Gola p.w.1; the stock or fertilisers was verified from September 10, 1962 to September 12, 1962 by p.w.3 Village Level Worker and p.w.4 Agricultural Extension Officer in the presence of the accused-Secretary, the President p.w.1 and some of the Directors of the Board; it was detected that there was a shortage of 74 bags 29 Kgs. valued at Rs. 3427.98 paise. 11. The question is: Was there any entrustment of the chemical fertilisers to the accused? The consistent evidence of watcher of the Grain Gola p.w.7 and some Directors of the Board p. ws. 2, 5, 6 and 8 is that the accused-Secretary was always keeping the key of the fertiliser-room. This is also the evidence of the President p.w.1 ; he denied that he (President) was keeping the key. Nothing has been brought out on record to disbelieve the evidence of all these witnesses. The accused did not examine anybody in support of his plea that the President was keeping the key of the fertiliser-room. Evidently the key of what was known as the paddy room was with the President and the key of what was known as the fertiliser-room where fertilisers were stored separately in the Grain Gola was with the accused-Secretary. 12. The accused did not examine anybody in support of his plea that the President was keeping the key of the fertiliser-room. Evidently the key of what was known as the paddy room was with the President and the key of what was known as the fertiliser-room where fertilisers were stored separately in the Grain Gola was with the accused-Secretary. 12. It is clear from evidence that the stock of fertilisers was intact on April 1, 1962 to the satisfaction of the accused-Secretary because the stock was physically verified on that day by the Agricultural Extension Officer in the presence of the President and the accused-Secretary. Ext. 7 is the monthly return dated April 1, 1962 which was signed by the President as well as the accused-secretary as correct; the certification as to the correctness of the stock at the foot of Ext. 7 was signed by both the President and the accused-Secretary. Thereafter the accused. Secretary continued to deal with the stock having been in sole charge of the same right up to the detection of the shortage on September 12, 1962 as aforesaid. Therefore, the shortage in respect of which the accused has been charged with misappropriation was in respect of the period from April 1, 1962 when the stock was found correct on verification as per Ext. 7 signed by both the accused-Secretary and the President upto September 12, 1962 when the shortage was detected. 13. The learned trial Magistrate and in appeal the learned Sessions Judge rightly found that the accused-Secretary was in sole charge of the fertiliser-room and its key; so the accused was in fact entrusted with the entire stock of fertilisers; therefore the shortage in the stock must be explained by the accused-secretary. 14. The question is: Did the accused Petitioner explain as to what he did with the stock of fertilisers of account for the same entrusted to him? The answer is: No. He has failed to give any explanation as to what he did with the stock of fertilisers so entrusted to him. Therefore, the reasonable presumption is that it was the accused who committed criminal breach of trust in respect of the chemical fertilisers which was found short. 15. The answer is: No. He has failed to give any explanation as to what he did with the stock of fertilisers so entrusted to him. Therefore, the reasonable presumption is that it was the accused who committed criminal breach of trust in respect of the chemical fertilisers which was found short. 15. This view is further confirmed by the conduct of the accused-Secretary, namely these: He did not send, as required under the rules, any monthly return at an to the B.D.O. from April 1. 1962, that is the date of verification of the stock, till September 2, 1962; on September 2, 1962 the accused-Secretary sent a monthly return which he did not get countersigned by the President as required by the rules; evidently the accused-Secretary evaded showing the return to the President. The accused was also evading verification of the stock of fertilisers by the Village Level Worker p.w.9 who was sent by the B.D.O., in that p.w.9 came to the Grain Gola 4 to 5 times for the purpose of verifying the stock but could not find the accused-Secretary on 2 or 3 occasions; on the other occasions when the Village Level Worker met the accused, he (accused) evaded verification by putting off the matter to some other date. The dishonest intention of the accused-Secretary is clear from these facts. Evidently the accused-Secretary misappropriated the stock for which he was not submitting the monthly returns regularly and was evading to give verification of the stock in the manner aforesaid. 16. In view of the strong evidence discussed above, the charge of criminal breach of trust by the accused-Secretary was proved against him beyond any reasonable doubt. The accused was rightly convicted and sentenced. I 17. I find no reason to interfere with the decision of both the courts below. The order of conviction and sentences passed by the learned Sessions Judge is accordingly confirmed. The criminal revision is dismissed. Revision dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed