JUDGMENT : G.K. Misra, J. - The Petitioner has been convicted u/s 409, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R.T. for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/ -, in default, to R.I. for one month. 2. Prosecution case may be stated in brief. The Petitioner was the audit inspector of Grama Panchayat at Keonjhar. Dumuria Grama Panchayat was within his jurisdiction. On 18-7-1957 the Petitioner was entrusted with a Co-operative Society Savings Bank Pass Book of Dumuria Grama Panchayat with a cash balance of Rs. 578-19 p. and Rs. 30(- in cash. He was to withdraw this amount and to deposit the same in the Postal Savings Bank account along with Rs. 30(-. The Petitioner withdrew the amount, utilised Rs. 300/ - in cash for purchase of National Savings Certificates and sent them to the Sarpanch, Dumuria (p.w.5). He retained the balance amount for purchase of fish fries for the Grama Panchayat and misappropriated the same. In defence, the Petitioner admitted to have received the Pass Book, cash of Rs. 30/ - and withdrawal of the money from the said Pass Book. He admitted to have purchased the N.S. Certificates for Rs. 300/ - and to have sent them to p.w.5. Regarding the balance, his defence is that he paid the same to a person suggested by p.w.5 for supply of fish fries. The said person is a dealer of Calcutta who informed him that he could not supply the fish fries before 1960. Accordingly the Petitioner wrote a latter (ext. 8) on 21-11-1958 to p.w.5 saying that if the latter could not, wait, the Petitioner was willing that the Sarpanch would recover the amount from his pay and D.A. for which he sent an authority (Ext. 8) along with ext. 8. The learned Sessions Judge held: Even giving the benefit of doubt to the accused and admitting that the Sarpanch has actually given instruction to the accused to pay the sum of Rs. 30/ - for supply of fish fries to a person suggested by him, still the responsibility of the accused to see that the supply is made or the amount is refunded does not cease. The mere offer of the accused to have the unaccounted amount adjusted out of his arrear salary and T.A. cannot be treated as proper refund of the money. The mere offer of the accused to have the unaccounted amount adjusted out of his arrear salary and T.A. cannot be treated as proper refund of the money. It was the duty of the accused to pay the amount in cash and obtain a receipt from the Sarpanch which he has not done in the present case. On this finding, he upheld the conviction. 3. Mr. Mohapatra contended that even though the Petitioner had not been able to prove that the balance money was paid to the Calcutta dealer in accordance with the direction of p.w.5, his version that it was paid bad not been proved to be false and might reasonably be true and that in such a case the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. The contention requires careful examination. P.W.5 admitted that he wrote to p.w.6 and Lalit Mohan Patnaik, Grama Panchayat Organiser, that he had instructed the accused to pay Re. 308.19 p. to the person suggested by him for supply of fish fries. P.W.6 supports the version of p. w 5 and also states that the Petitioner wrote 7 to 8 letters to the S. D O. informing him that Rs. 30 had been paid to a person suggested by p.w.6 for supply of fish fries. 4. From the prosecution evidence it seems clear that p.w.5 had instructed the Petitioner to pay the balance amount to a person for purchase of fish fries. There is, however, no evidence that in fact the Petitioner paid the amount. The conduct of the Petitioner, however, probabilises his version of having paid the amount. He intimated the fact to p.w.5 and p.w.6. They did not raise any objection that his version was false. He wrote 7 or 8 letters to the S.D.O. giving him intimation of this fact. Those letters had not been produced and the S.D.O. did not take any steps to verify that the statement is untrue. On the materials on record the conclusion would be that the Petitioner has failed to establish that in fact he made the payment and the prosecution has failed to establish that the version of the Petitioner is untrue. It is well settled that the onus on the accused is not as heavy as it is on the prosecution. On the materials on record the conclusion would be that the Petitioner has failed to establish that in fact he made the payment and the prosecution has failed to establish that the version of the Petitioner is untrue. It is well settled that the onus on the accused is not as heavy as it is on the prosecution. The accused in entitled to benefit of doubt if his version may reasonably be true though he might have failed to establish its truth. I am of opinion that in the facts and circumstances of this case, as already discussed, the defence may reasonably be true. 5. In the result, the orders of conviction and sentence passed by the Courts below are set aside and the Petitioner is entitled to acquittal. The criminal revision is allowed. Final Result : Allowed