JUDGMENT : R.N. Misra, J. - This is an appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jaipur in a case u/s 406, Indian Penal Code. 2. The Respondent Durga Prasad Agarwalla was the Transport Manager, Tamka Iron Mines. A sum of Rs. 1,228.49 being the compensation fees realised in some forest cases had been entrusted to him for the purpose of depositing the same into Government account. He failed to make the payment inspite of several notices. Thereupon a case u/s 405, Indian Penal Code was instituted and the accused was put on trial. Four witnesses for the prosecution were examined-two were Forest Guards, one was a Range Officer and p.w. 4 was a Forester. 3. The defence taken in this case was a complete denial of any entrustment to the Respondent of any money. The learned Magistrate came to conclude: That the accused was entrusted with the money and that he was liable to 'deposit the same with the Government and that he has not done so till this day, are some of the salient facts of the case which cannot reasonably be disputed, in view of the evidence elicited above. Now the only question that remains for consideration is as to whether the liability of the accused to pay the money is civil in nature or whether he has acted with the dishonest intention to misappropriate or convert into his own, use the said money in not depositing the same with the Government inspite of repeated demands by the proper authorities. The main distinction between the civil liability on the one hand and criminal breach of trust or any other criminal liability on the other, lies in the existence of dishonest intention and the necessary mens rea, that is to say 'mental act' of fraudulent misappropriation in the latter case and the absence of the same in the former. The dishonest intention is the most essential ingredient of the offence of criminal breach of trust. Prosecution must prove the existence of the dishonest intention beyond all reasonable doubts. It will not suffice for the prosecution merely to prove the circumstances which may be consistent either with the dishonest intention of the accused or the absence of such intention. The dishonest intention is the most essential ingredient of the offence of criminal breach of trust. Prosecution must prove the existence of the dishonest intention beyond all reasonable doubts. It will not suffice for the prosecution merely to prove the circumstances which may be consistent either with the dishonest intention of the accused or the absence of such intention. It is well settled that dishonest intention should always be inferred from the conduct of the accused both before and after the alleged entrustment and also from the surrounding circumstances. In the instant case the accused by his letters marked Exts. 34 and 37 admits that he was the custodian of the compensation money to the extent of Rs. 1228.49 N.P. and has asked for time to deposit the same in the Range office. That shows he had no dishonest intention to misappropriate or convert to his own use the said money, especially in view of the fact that repeatedly he had been asking for time to deposit the same with the Government. His letters to the Ranger and the D.F.O. clearly indicate his intention. On the aforesaid conclusion of his, the learned Magistrate passed "a judgment of acquittal. The present appeal is directed against the same. 4. Exts. 34 and 37 which are two letters written by the Respondent to public officers may now be extracted: The Range Officer, Sukinda Range, Keonjhar, Dear Sir, Ref:-Your notice for payment of Rs. 1228.49 N.P. on 3-10-1962. I am in receipt of your above notice on 4th October 1962 and regret to note the contents therein. In this connection I would like to inform you that as I got the notice on 4-10-1962 the question of depositing money on 3-10-1962 does not arise. Hence I request you to kindly fix a further date after 20-10-1962 as to make the payment at your office. Yours faithfully, Sd. D.P. Agarwalla 5-10-1962 Transport Manager. T.I.M. The Divisional Forest Officer, Keonjhar (Orissa). Dear Sir, Ref:-Deposit of compensation amount to Rs. 1228.49 N. P. With reference to above please note that I agree to deposit the same at your office on demand. Hence I request you to kindly allow me to do so and instruct the R.O., Sukinda accordingly. Yours faithfully, Sd. D. Agarwalla, 24-12-1962 The first letter is of early October 1962 while the second letter is of the later part of December 1962. Hence I request you to kindly allow me to do so and instruct the R.O., Sukinda accordingly. Yours faithfully, Sd. D. Agarwalla, 24-12-1962 The first letter is of early October 1962 while the second letter is of the later part of December 1962. Though there was a clear admission of entrustment of the money in these two letters and obviously on account of the fact that the money was not available with him at the particular time he was asking for extension of time to deposit the same in the forest office, he has taken the defence that no such entrustment had ever been made to him. I find it difficult to appreciate the reasoning of the learned Magistrate in this particular case. 5. Criminal breach of trust' has been defined in Section 405, Indian Penal Code in the following manner: Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied which he has made touching the discharge of trust, or wilfully suffers any other person 80 to do, commits 'criminal breach of trust'. Examining the matter at length in Chelloor Mankkal Narayan Ittiravi Nambudiri Vs. State of Travancore-Cochin their Lordships made it clear that to constitute an offence of criminal breach of trust it is essential that the prosecution must prove first of all that the accused was entrusted with some property or with any dominion or power over it. It has to be established further that in respect of the property so entrusted, there was dishonest misappropriation or dishonest conversion or dishonest use or disposal in violation of a direction of law or legal contract, by the accused himself or by some one else which he willingly suffered to do. It follows almost axiomatically from this definition that the ownership or beneficial interest in the property in respect of which criminal breach of trust is alleged to have been committed, must be in some person other than the accused and the latter must hold it on account of some person or in Borne way for his benefit. It follows almost axiomatically from this definition that the ownership or beneficial interest in the property in respect of which criminal breach of trust is alleged to have been committed, must be in some person other than the accused and the latter must hold it on account of some person or in Borne way for his benefit. In this case entrustment of the money has been found and in view of the two letters referred to above there is hardly any scope for dispute. That the money was held under entrustment to be deposited into the Government account also can hardly be disputed. The only question for examination therefore, is as to whether there has been a dishonest misappropriation. 6. In Jaswantrai Manilal Akhaney Vs. The State of Bombay it was held that a deprivation even for a short period is within the meaning of the expression "criminal breach of trust". If the Managing Director of a bank entrusted with securities owned by the pledgers disposes of those securities, against the stipulated terms of the contract entered into by the parties, with the intention of causing wrongful loss to the pledgers and wrongful gain to the bank, there can be no question but that the Managing Director had necessary mens rea required by Section 405. 7. In the present case the money was being held without being credited into the Government account. The Respondent had no authority to detain its custody and make any delay in depositing the same. The fact that when called upon to make the deposit he was not in a position to do so is a circumstance which can be used by way of evidence against him' that at that point of time he was not ready with the money entrusted to him. This happened on two occasions spread over a period of more than two months. Added to this feature he has taken the stand in Court at the trial that there was no entrustment. These together in my opinion constitute sufficient evidence to establish that requisite ingredient which according to the learned Magistrate in this case was wanting, namely, the criminal intention. 8. I would, therefore, conclude that the fact that the Respondent committed an offence punishable u/s 406, Indian Penal Code has been sufficiently established. The judgment of acquittal in the circumstances cannot be sustained. 8. I would, therefore, conclude that the fact that the Respondent committed an offence punishable u/s 406, Indian Penal Code has been sufficiently established. The judgment of acquittal in the circumstances cannot be sustained. I would allow this appeal and convict the Respondent u/s 406, Indian Penal Code. At the hearing he was not represented. 9. Coming to the question of sentence, however, I think in the background of this particular case a heavier fine would meet the ends of justice. The Government money must also be recovered. I would, therefore, give a sentence of fine of Rs. 2000/- (two thousand). Out of the fine, if realised, the learned Magistrate would make over a sum of Rs. 1228.49/- to the concerned forest officer who initiated the prosecution for being credited into the Government account. In default of payment of fine the Respondent would undergo R.I. for six months.