JUDGMENT G. Kumar, J. - Soney Lal applicant has been convicted under section 411 I. P.C. and sentenced to one years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, or in default to undergo four months further rigorous imprisonment. Another accused Bhagwandas was convicted under section 408 I. P. G. but his revision has already been dismissed by this Court. 2. The case of the applicant arises in the following circumstances. Bhagwandas was the Munim of a firm at Etah known as Messrs Hazarilal Nemi Chandra on a salary of Rs. 90/- per mensem. P. W. I. Nemi Chand was the proprietor of the said firm. On 8-7-63 P. W. Nemi Chand sent Bhagwandas Munim to Messrs. Mahasukhlal, which was carrying on business at Farrukhabad, with a letter (Ext. Ka. 4). to bring a sum of Rs. 6,000/-, which were due to P. W. Nemi Chandra. Bhagwandas was required to return to Etah by 9-7-63. When Bhagwandas did not return on 9-7-63, P. W. Nemi Chand had a telephonic conversation with Messrs. Mahasukhlal. He was informed by P. W. 2 Mahasukhlal that Bhagwandas Munim had already been paid Rs. 6,000/- on the afternoon of 9-7-63. Thereupon P. W. Nemi Chandra sent his other Munim Shanti Swarup (P. W. 3) to Ganjdundwara, which was the home town of Bhagwandas. After reaching Ganjdundwara P. W. Shanti Swarup came to know that Bhagwandas had brought the money with him but was keeping away from going to Etah. Therefore on 11-7-63 P.W. Nemi Chandra lodged a written report at Kotwali Etah, but all the papers were transmitted to Farrukhabad, as the offence related to that place. P. W. 11 Sri Krishna Gupta S.I. investigated the case. In the meantime Bhagwandas, absconded, with the I result that proceedings under sections 87 and 88 Cr. P. C. were taken against him. On 4-8-63 the investigating officer saw both the accused going on a rickshaw from Farrukhabad railway station towards the city at about 5 a. m. When the investigating officer stopped the rickshaw, both the accused tried to escape, but they were apprehended after being given some beating during the course of arrest. Bhagwandas accused informed the investigating officer that out of the sum of Rs. 6,000/-, which he , had received from Mahasukhlal, he had f passed on 5,000/- to the applicant and retained a sum of Rs. 1,000/- for his personal use. Bhagwandas accused informed the investigating officer that out of the sum of Rs. 6,000/-, which he , had received from Mahasukhlal, he had f passed on 5,000/- to the applicant and retained a sum of Rs. 1,000/- for his personal use. The applicant is said to have admitted before the investigating I officer that he had hidden the money in his house, which had been handed over to him by Bhagwandas accused. Both the accused were then brought to Ganjdunwara, where the applicant took the investigating officer and other witnesses to his house. On reaching the house, Bhagwandas asked the applicant to take out the money, which he had deposited with him. Accordingly the applicant went inside and dug out currency notes of 10/- each aggregating Rs. 1,490/- from the western wall of his room. Thereafter the applicant dug out another 33 notes of Rs. 100/- each from the southern wall of the room. Thus a total amount of Rs. 4,790/- was handed over by the applicant to the investigating officer. 3. I am not concerned with the defence of Bhagwandas as he is not before me. The defence of the applicant, however, was that he had gone to Farrukhabad to fetch his sister where he inet the investigating officer on 4-8-63. He was brought to Ganjdundwara and at the asking of the investigating officer he had dug a sum of Rs. 4,790/-, which represented the sale proceeds of his gold and silver ornaments which he had disposed off a few days earlier. According to him, the investigating officer had promised to return him the money, but he did not do so. On the other hand he falsely implicated him in the crime. 4. The receipt of Rs. 6,000/- by Bhagwandas accused from Mahasukhlal at Farrukhabad on 9-7 63 was fully established. Mahasukhlal also deposed that in that payment of Rs. 6,000/- a few currency notes of Rs. 100/- were a little greasy, so the witness had signed and sealed these notes on the understanding that he would replace them in case Nemi Chand refused to accept the same. It is noteworthy that three such notes (Exts. 2 to 4), bearing the signature and seal of P. W. Mahasukhlal, were recovered from the possession of the applicant on 4-8-63. The question is whether his conviction can be maintained under section 411 I. P. C. 5. It is noteworthy that three such notes (Exts. 2 to 4), bearing the signature and seal of P. W. Mahasukhlal, were recovered from the possession of the applicant on 4-8-63. The question is whether his conviction can be maintained under section 411 I. P. C. 5. The term stolen property has been defined in section 410 I. P. G. which inter alia includes the property, which has been criminally misappropriated and/or in respect of which criminal breach of trust has been committed. In the instant case there be no manner of doubt that the sum of Rs. 6,000/- received by Bhagwandas from Mahasukhlal on 9-7-63 was stolen property in the hands of Bhagwandas, inasmuch as he had committed criminal breach of trust in respect thereof and had misappropriated the same. Now the question is whether the applicant had dishonestly received and retained a sum of Rs. 5,000/- which had been handed over by Bhagwandas to him, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property. 6. There is ample evidence on record to prove, and it has not seriously been challenged on behalf of the applicant, that the latter had received a sum of Rs. 5,000/- from Bhagwandas. It may be that by itself a particular circumstance may not be enough to conclusively prove or attribute such a knowledge to the applicant and that it was stolen property, but put together, the circumstances enumerated hereunder can lead to the only inference that the applicant knew the money to be stolen property or had at least reason to believe that the same was stolen property: (1) Both the accused were friends and residents of the same town Ganjdundwara. The applicant must have known that Bhagwandas was only working as a Munim at Etah on a salary of Rs. 90/- per mensem. He should have been, therefore, on his guard before accepting a big amount of Rs. 5,000/- from Bhagwandas unless he was accepting the same with knowledge or reason to believe that it was stolen property. (2) Though both the accused were residents of the same town yet Bhagwandas did not keep the money with him but handed it over to the applicant in spite of the fact that he was not a banker nor had he any arrangement for its proper custody in an iron safe etc. (2) Though both the accused were residents of the same town yet Bhagwandas did not keep the money with him but handed it over to the applicant in spite of the fact that he was not a banker nor had he any arrangement for its proper custody in an iron safe etc. In fact the evidence shows that the money was dug out by the applicant from two walls of his room. (3) Even if Bhagwandas had originally asked him to keep the money for a day or two but its retention for almost a month should have led to a reasonable belief in the mind of the applicant that the money was ill gotten. (4) Both the accused were found going together in a rickshaw in the early morning and when asked to stop both tried to escape and had to be apprehended after infliction of some injuries on them. This is also indicative of guilty mind of the applicant. (5) The applicant took a false plea in the court below that the money handed over by him to the investigating officer represented the sale proceeds of his gold and silver ornaments. In fact he did not lead any evidence to prove this assertion. (6) The fact that three greasy notes of the denomination of Rs. 100/- each, bearing the signature and seal of P. W. Mahasukhlal were recovered from the applicants possession, also goes to show that the money was criminally acquired, particularly when he never suggested that he had any money dealings with Mahasukhlal aforesaid. (7) The applicant had appropriated a sum of Rs. 210/- out of Rs. 5,000/- which were entrusted to him for sale custody. 7. All the above circumstances cumulatively lead to an unmistakable presumption of fact that the applicant either knew or had reasonable grounds to believe that the money in question was stolen property. A presumption of law can also legitimately be drawn against him under section 114 of the Evidence Act. Illustration (a) to the aforesaid Section says : 'That a. man is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen unless he can account for his possession." 8. Illustration (a) to the aforesaid Section says : 'That a. man is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen unless he can account for his possession." 8. I have already held above that the applicant has really not been able to account for the possession of the amount, which he had handed over to the investigating officer on 4-8-63. No evidence was led to prove the explanation offered by him, which was obviously false. The money was recovered from his possession in about three weeks time from the date of misappropriation by Bhagwandas. Therefore a legal presumption can be drawn against the applicant that he had received and retained the money knowing it to be stolen. 9. For the reasons disclosed above, I come to the conclusion that the courts below were perfectly justified in convicting the applicant under section 411 I. P. C. The sentences are certainly not excessive. 10. The revision has no force and is accordingly dismissed. The applicant is on bail. Fie must immediately surrender to serve out the balance of his sentence. His bail bonds are hereby cancelled.