ORDER This is a petition in revision by one Tilak Ram who was convicted under Sec. 409 I.P.C. by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Meerut and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 400. 2. The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Meerut by his order dated June 9, 1964 dismissed the appeal of Tilak Ram, which he had preferred against the order of conviction passed by the learned Magistrate. 3. The petitioner was a Kamdar of Cooperative Societies Seed Store, Darweshpur, Police Station Parichhatgarh in the year 1957-58. At that time one, Shri Gyan Prakash was Supervisor incharge of the Co-operative Seed Store at Darweshpur. One of the functions of the Society was to advance grain to the members of the Society to be used as seed which was to be returned back with additional grain to the extent of one-fourth of the grain advanced. For the above purpose, grain used to be indented and stocked under the charge of the supervisor. The petitioner is also alleged to have worked as Chaukidar. According to rules governing the Society, it was the duty of the Supervisor to issue grain and make necessary entries in respect thereof in purzis, bonds, Galla Bahi and Khata Bahi. It was also alleged that in the absence of the Supervisor the Kamdar used to perform his duty, although there was no such provision in the governing rules. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner issued 21/2 maunds. of wheat to one Moti and 21/2 maunds of wheat to one Balwant on the 26th October 1957 and relative entries were made in the Televant papers. No wheat at all was given to them. The prosecution further alleged that on 31st October 1957, 21/2 maunds of wheat was advanced to one Kanhaiya and entries Were made in the relevant papers to show that he had received 5 maunds of wheat on that date. On that basis, the prosecution alleged that 71/2 maunds of wheat was misappropriated and embezzled by the petitioner. The prosecution further alleged that on 31st October 1957, 21/2 maunds of wheat was advanced to one Kanhaiya and entries Were made in the relevant papers to show that he had received 5 maunds of wheat on that date. On that basis, the prosecution alleged that 71/2 maunds of wheat was misappropriated and embezzled by the petitioner. On the 4th February 1958, entries were made in the relevant papers to show that 30 maunds of bhoosa had been advanced to one Ram Dayal, but in fact no such advance of Bhoosa had been made and this commodity also was criminally misappropriated by the petitioner who had made the entries in the relevant papers in respect thereof. It appears that Sri Cyan Prakash, the Supervisor on the relevant dates was transferred and one Shri Sheo Raj Singh took charge of the Seed Store as Supervisor. It was he, who detected the above fraudulent entries and transactions and that the persons who were said to have received the wheat and bhoosa on the relevant dates did not actually receive them. He reported the matter to the Circle Officer, Shri Babu Ram Sharma. Subsequently, a report was made to the Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies, who in his turn brought the facts to the notice of the S. S. P. Meerut by his letter Ex. Ka. 24. The case was thereafter registered, investigated and the petitioner challaned. 4. After preliminary enquiry, the case was committed to the Court of Session for trial. The petitioner was committed to the Court of Session to stand his trial under Sections 409 and 467 I.P.C. In the Sessions Court, the charges were split up and the charge of embezzlement was the subject matter of Sessions Trial No. 94 of 1962. 5. The petitioner has filed different petitions in revision against the order of his conviction under Section 467 I.P.C. and those revision petitions shall be disposed of by different orders. For the present, I am concerned with the conviction of the petitioner for offence under Section 409 I.P.C. On the evidence produced on behalf of the prosecution, the two Courts below have found that the charge brought against him had been fully established and consequently, the petitioner has been convicted as pointed out above. 6. For the present, I am concerned with the conviction of the petitioner for offence under Section 409 I.P.C. On the evidence produced on behalf of the prosecution, the two Courts below have found that the charge brought against him had been fully established and consequently, the petitioner has been convicted as pointed out above. 6. To my mind, on the materials on the record, the petitioner could not be convicted for offence under Section 409, I.P.C., and the orders of the two Courts below must, therefore, be set aside. 7. In order to bring home the offence under Section 409, I.P.C., the prosecution has first to establish that the person charged with the offence was in any manner entrusted with the property or with any dominion over the property. 8. Next the prosecution has to establish that property has been either misappropriated or converted to his use by the accused or that he dishonestly used or disposed of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he had made touching the discharge of such trust or he wilfully suffered any other person so to do. 9. From the letter sent by Mr. S.K. Misra, Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, U.P., Meerut, to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Meerut, dated 18th/27th July 1959, I find that it was alleged that embezzlement had been done by Sri Gyan Prakash while holding charge of the Seed Store, Durweshpur, as Cooperative Supervisor and that it was necessary to take legal action against Sri Gyan Prakash. No action was taken against Sri Gyan Prakash. He has been examined as a Court witness in the case. It is not in controversy that the stock of grain was kept in the control, custody and under the supervision of Sri Gyan Prakash as Supervisor of the store. The learned Sessions Judge has noticed that under the rule, it was the duty of the Supervisor to issue grain and make necessary entries in respect thereof in relevant papers. It has further been noticed by the learned Judge that it was conceded that the Supervisor of the Seed Store and that it was the duty of such Supervisor, who advanced grain, to make necessary entries in the relevant papers. It has further been noticed by the learned Judge that it was conceded that the Supervisor of the Seed Store and that it was the duty of such Supervisor, who advanced grain, to make necessary entries in the relevant papers. What was further held out was this, that, in an irregular manner, the Kamdars have also been performing the duty of the Supervisor either in the absence or the presence of the Supervisor. On the prosecution case it is, therefore, clear that there was no entrustment of property or of dominion over property to the petitioner. This consideration alone is sufficient to come to the conclusion that the petitioner could not be said to have committed the offence of criminal breach of trust. The person who could be said to have committed that offence would naturally be the Supervisor and not the Kamdar or the chaukidar. If the Supervisor by an irregular arrangement suffered the doing of such a thing by the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be said to have committed the offence of criminal breach of trust within the meaning of Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code. 10. There is yet another relevant consideration for coming to the conclusion that the petitioner could not be convicted for the offence of criminal breach of trust. There are no materials on the record to show that any property was actually misappropriated or otherwise disposed of Entries showing disposal of property alone cannot be sufficient to establish that property has been actually lost. 11. It is not clear why in spite of report of Sri S.K. Misra to the Senior Superintendent of Police against Shri Gyan Prakash, the person prosecuted was not Gyan Prakash but the present petitioner. 12. Without entering into the questions of fact, on account of reasons pointed out by me above, this petition must be allowed and the order of conviction of the petitioner for offence under Section 409, I.P.C., must be set aside. 13. The petition is allowed. The orders of the Courts below convicting the petitioner for offence under Section 409, I.P.C., are set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the charge. The petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender so far as this case is concerned. Fine, if paid, will be refunded to the petitioner. GGM/D.V.C. Petition allowed.