JUDGMENT : S. Acharya, J. - This is an appeal u/s 417, Code of Criminal Procedure by the State against the order of acquittal passed in appeal by The Sessions Judge, Sambalpur acquitting the accused Respondent herein of an offence u/s 409, Indian Penal Code of which be was convicted by The Assistant Sessions Judge, Sambalpur. 2. The prosecution case in short is that on 9-12-1961 the accused Respondent was working as the Head Clerk-cum-Accountant in The office of The B.D.O. Jharsuguda and on the date he received an amount of Rs. 133.65 p. paid by p.w. 1 Lingaraj Patel towards repayment of his first instalment of the loan taken from the B.D.O?s office. The Respondent by Ext. 4/1 acknowledged in his own hand the receipt of the aforesaid amount on the body of the demand notice Ext. 4 itself. He did not grant any separate receipt for the said payment made by p.w. 1 as per the prescribed Rules, nor did he show the said amount as received from p.w. 1 in any of the Accounts Books in the Department, and in the process committed criminal misappropriation of the said amount. 3. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. In his statement u/s 342, Code of Criminal Procedure he denied the alleged receipt and the consequential entrustment of the said amount to him, and he denied the writing and the signature as per Ext. 4/1 by which the payment of the money was acknowledged. He however admitted that on 9-12-1961 he was the Head Clerk-cum-Accountant in the B.D.O?s Office at Jharsuguda, but he pleaded that he never took charge of the cash from the former Accountant, and he only used to spend whatever amount was entrusted to him by the B.D.O. in accordance with his strict instructions. He stated that he at times used to receive cash and grant receipt for the same for the B.D.O. and he used to make over the money so received by him to the B.D.O. and made necessary entries of such amounts in the Cash Book. He stated that he at times used to receive cash and grant receipt for the same for the B.D.O. and he used to make over the money so received by him to the B.D.O. and made necessary entries of such amounts in the Cash Book. He further stated that all the B.D.O.?s in the Office used to take from him money in advance merely on slips, and due to circumstances beyond his control the accounts in the B.D.O.?s office was in a chaotic state of affairs, and on that account he had to recoup large sums of money by selling ornaments of his wife, as auditors found shortage of funds in the cash of that Office. 4. The prosecution examined 6 witnesses and the defence only one. The trial Court convicted the accused on the findings that Ext. 4/1, the receipt, is in the handwriting and signature of none-else other than that of the Respondent; that the amount under Ext. 4/1 was in respect of the demand notice Ext. 4 sent to p.w. 1 for the realisation of the said amount; that the accused under Ext. 4/1 received an amount of Rs. 133.65p. from Lingaraj Patel p.w. 1, which he paid towards his loan dues mentioned in the demand notice Ext. 4, and that it was successfully proved that the amount in question on being entrusted by p.w. 1 to the Respondent, was never accounted for in any account books and was clearly misappropriated by the Respondent, and thus an offence u/s 409, Indian Penal Code had been successfully established against him. 5. On appeal the Sessions Judge, Sambalpur acquitted the accused Respondent on the finding that the entrustment of the aforesaid amount to the Respondent could not be proved by the p.ws. On a perusal of the appellate judgment of acquittal I am satisfied that the Sessions Judge misdirected himself and arrived at incorrect findings as he, without dealing with the relevant and the important features of the evidence on record, dabbled mostly on irrelevant and unnecessary considerations. The learned Sessions Judge attached lot of importance to Exts. A, B, D and E and two documents marked X and Y but not exhibited in the case whereby as alleged by the Respondent, certain amounts were advanced by the accused to the B.D.Os. The learned Sessions Judge attached lot of importance to Exts. A, B, D and E and two documents marked X and Y but not exhibited in the case whereby as alleged by the Respondent, certain amounts were advanced by the accused to the B.D.Os. and it could not be definitely stated by the B.D.O. if the amounts so taken were entered in the relevant Accounts Books in the B.D.O?s office. The learned (sic) Judge believed much on the consideration that the accounts in the B.D.O?s Office were not maintained in a proper manner. It also attached much importance to the evidence of p.w. 3 to the effect that before submitting his report Ext. 10 for this misappropriation be made a physical verification of the cash along with the cash books and found that both these tallied, but he did not record the Actual cash in hand. The appreciation of the prosecution evidence regarding the payment of the money by p.w. 1 to the Respondent is per functionary and preceded on wrong and/or irrelevant considerations. 6. The Respondent admitted in his statement u/s 342 that he was the Head Clerk-cum-Accountant in that office at the relevant time. He, while admitting that he used to receive, cash and grant receipt for the same on behalf of the B.D.O. stated that be used to immediately make over the amount to The B.D.O. and entered the amount so received in The Cash Book. In tile context of his above admissions The most important question which is to be ascertained in this case is whether the prosecution has been able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the amount of Rs. 133. 65P. was Actually paid by p.w. 1 to the Respondent towards the repayment, of the first installment of the Loan and if the said amount has been proved to have been entrusted to the Respondent., whether he has been successful in rendering proper account for the said amount in accordance with his service obligations. It is not disputed that Ext. 4 is the demand notice for Rs. 33.65 P. served on p.w. 1 for the repayment of the aforesaid amount towards the first installment of the loan taken by p.w. 1 from the B.D.O.?s Office. According to p.w. 1, he on receiving the said demand notice (Ext. 4) went to the B.D.O?.s office at Jharuguda with the amount stated therein and paid Rs. 33.65 P. served on p.w. 1 for the repayment of the aforesaid amount towards the first installment of the loan taken by p.w. 1 from the B.D.O.?s Office. According to p.w. 1, he on receiving the said demand notice (Ext. 4) went to the B.D.O?.s office at Jharuguda with the amount stated therein and paid Rs. 135/- to the Respondent who was then the Head Clerk-cum-Accountant in the said Office. The Respondent without granting him any separate receipt in acknowledging payment of the said amount and without returning the balance amount paid in excess of the does, made the endorsement Ext. 4/1 on the Demand notice Ext. 4 in the presence of p.w. 1, returned the same to p.w. I by flaying that the said endorsement could be utilised as a receipt on future occasions. The handwriting in the endorsement Ext 4/1 and the signature therein were identified to be that of the Respondent by p.ws. 2 and 3, two B.D.O?s during whose tenure the Respondent was serving in that Office. p.w. 4, on Upper Division Clerk of the said office, also identified that the Endorsement and the signature in Ext 4/1 were in the hand-writing of the Respondent. p.w. 1 also stated that when he paid the aforesaid amount to the Respondent the B.D.O. was not present in the Office. There is slight variation in p.w. 1?s evidence regarding the Actual amount which he had, with him when he went to the B.D.O?.s Office. He has however consistently stated both in examination-in-chief and also in (sic) cross examination that be handed over Rs. 135/- to the accused on that day towards payment of the aforesaid instalment amount of Rs. 133. 65 p. mentioned in the demand notice Ext. 4, and that the Respondent did not return the balance amount to p.w. 1 which was paid in excess of the dues. On a careful reading of the evidence of p.w. 1 I am satisfied that the slight variation in his evidence regarding the Actual amount in his possession when he went to the B.D.O.?s Office is not of much relevance, and/or significance, and merely because of the same, his evidence, which has not been assailed in any other manner, cannot be disbelieved. Nothing could be elicited from him as to why he would falsely implicate the Respondent in this case. Nothing could be elicited from him as to why he would falsely implicate the Respondent in this case. No cause for any enmity and/or ill-will between the Respondent and p.w. 1 could be brought out in cross-examination. p.w. 2 one of the B.D.O?s. testified to the fact that the Respondent, the Head Clerk-cum-Accountant of the B.D.O.?s Office, used to receive repayment of loans and other amounts in that office both during the presence and absence of the B.D.O. in the office. In his cross-examination he stated I am definite that the endorsement Ext. 4/1 is in the handwriting of the accused Head Clerk. P.w. 3, the B.D.O. who enquired into the matter and submitted the report Ext. 10 to the Police on which the Respondent was prosecuted, stated that he on receiving information from p.w. 1 that he had already paid the aforesaid amount of Rs. 133. 65 p. to the Respondent, enquired into The matter and found that the,said amount had not been mentioned in any of the relevant accounts books. He further stated that the Accountant of the B.D.O.?s Office remained in charge of the cash. This witness, proves the entry Ext. 7/2 in a particular portion of the Loan. Ledger Ext. 7 to be in the handwriting of the Respondent. The above entry shows that the above mentioned first instalment dues from p.w. 1 is shown as not paid in columns 12 and 13 thereof. The evidence of p.w. 1 and the entries to the above effect made by the Respondent are important and significant and goes a long way to support the prosecution case against the Respondent. P.ws. 2 and 3 are two responsible Government servants and-it is not shown as to why they would perjure against the Respondent in the aforesaid manner. Apart from these two p.ws. there is the evidence of p.w. 4 who also stated that the Respondent was the Head Clerk-cum-Accountant in the B.D.O?s. Office at the relevant time and he used to receive payment and disburse amounts in the said Office. He worked with the accused for 5 years and there is no reason as to why his evidence to the above effect and to the effect that he was acquainted with the signature and handwritings of the accused Respondent cannot be relied upon. He has identified the handwriting and the signature in the endorsement Ext. He worked with the accused for 5 years and there is no reason as to why his evidence to the above effect and to the effect that he was acquainted with the signature and handwritings of the accused Respondent cannot be relied upon. He has identified the handwriting and the signature in the endorsement Ext. 4/1 to be that of the accused. It has not even been suggested to this witness, a long time colleague of the Respondent, that be had any ill-feeling towards the Respondent. His evidence? to the above effect therefore stands unassailed. 7. D.w. 1 admitted that the Respondent was the Head Clerk-cum-Accountant of the B.D.O.?s Office and that he was dealing with the cash of that office. He, having admitted that, however stated that the Respondent was dealing with cash only in the absence of the B.D.O. in Office, which is against the consistent prosecution evidence adduced by p.ws. 2, 3, and 4, and does not appear to be acceptable. 8. It was urged by Mr. Harichandan, the learned Counsel for the Respondent that on the failure of the prosecution to get, the opinion of a handwriting expert as to whether the writing in Ext. 4/1 was Actually that of the Respondent or not, it could not be definitely said that the prosecution established its case beyond all reasonable doubt. He submitted in this connection that the Court should not place implicit reliance on the evidence of p.ws., 2, 3 and 4 as they are all persons interested in the succeed of the prosecution case and are out to save themselves from the ignominy of the situation. The above contention is without any substance. The handwriting of a parson can he proved in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act and the opinion of a Handwriting Expert is neither the only method nor is conclusive to hat effect. In this case, the Respondent worked under the B.D.O?s. p.w. 2 and 3. He was the Head Clerk-cum Accountant in the said office and these Officers under whom he worked for a long time were certainly well acquainted with the hand writing as they very often had occasions to deal with his handwriting in the ordinary course of their official duty. He was the Head Clerk-cum Accountant in the said office and these Officers under whom he worked for a long time were certainly well acquainted with the hand writing as they very often had occasions to deal with his handwriting in the ordinary course of their official duty. They are responsible Government Officers, and unless anything definite is established against them, no adverse inference about their trust-worthiness can ordinarily be drawn p.w. 4, an Upper Division Clerk in the B.D.O.'s Office worked with the Respondent in the same Office for a period of five years and there is nothing unbelievable where he said that he was acquainted with the handwriting and signature of the Respondent. Because of his close contact with the Respondent in his official work it was expected that he was well acquainted with ?the handwriting of the accused. The evidence of p.ws. 2, 3 and 4 to this effect is relevant u/s 47 of the Evidence Act. Over and above all these the trial Court compared the writing in Ext. 4/1 with the writings in the accounts Book Ext. 11, which were admittedly in the handwriting of the Respondent, land arrived at the finding that the said writings in the two documents tallied with each other. The above comparison of the handwritings by the trial Court is permissible as provided for u/s 73 of the Evidence Act. It has been laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in The State of Gujarat v. Vinya Chandra Chhota Lal Pathi 1967 S.C.D. 414. That: A Court is competent to compare the disputed writing of a person with others which are admitted or proved to be his writings. It may not be safe for a Court to record a finding about a person?s writing in a certain document merely on the basis of comparison, but a Court can itself compare the writings in order to appreciate properly the other evidence produced before it in that regard. The opinion of a handwriting expert is also relevant in view of Section 45 of the Evidence Act, but that too is not conclusive. It has also been held that the sole evidence of an handwriting expert is not normally sufficient for recording a definite finding about the writing being of a certain person or not. The opinion of a handwriting expert is also relevant in view of Section 45 of the Evidence Act, but that too is not conclusive. It has also been held that the sole evidence of an handwriting expert is not normally sufficient for recording a definite finding about the writing being of a certain person or not. It follows that it is not essential that the handwriting expert must be examined in a case to prove or disprove The disputed writing. In view of the above authoritative pronouncements and in view of The evidence discussed above I am satisfied that the endorsement and The signature in Ext. 4/1 have been amply and suitably proved to be in the band-writing of the Respondent, as required u/s 67 of The Evidence Act. There is therefore no substance in the above contention raised by Mr. Harichandan. 9. On The evidence discussed above I am satisfied that it has been established beyond all reasonable doubt that p.w. 1 paid The aforesaid amount, due on him towards the first installment of the loan taken by him, to the Respondent, the Head Clerk-cum-Accountant of the B.D.O?.s Office, and accordingly the entrustment of the said amount to the Respondent is duly proved by the prosecution. Once the entrustment of the amount is established, the accused-Respondent in this case, is obliged to account for the said amount and the onus is on him to establish at least to a reasonable probability that the said money was legally and properly deposited, disbursed and/or utilised. If he fails so to account for the said amount that may justifiably lead to an inference of guilty u/s 409, Indian Penal Code against the accused person, as held in Bihar Mines v. Union of India AIR 1960 S.C. 889 . 10. p.w. 3, the B.D.O. who enquired into the matter and submitted the report Ext. 10 to the Police on which the accused Respondent was tried, states that in January 1964 he received information from p.w. 1 that, on a previous occasion, (meaning thereby the aforesaid payment on 9-12-1961) he had paid the said first instalment dues of Rs. 133. 65p. to the Respondent. p.w. 3 was shown by p.w. 1 the aforesaid endorsement Ext. 4/1 made by the Respondent admitting therein the receipt of the said amount p.w. 3 then, on a reference to the Loan Ledger, particularly to Ext. 133. 65p. to the Respondent. p.w. 3 was shown by p.w. 1 the aforesaid endorsement Ext. 4/1 made by the Respondent admitting therein the receipt of the said amount p.w. 3 then, on a reference to the Loan Ledger, particularly to Ext. 7, found that the said amount of Rs. 133.65 p. was not entered therein as paid by p.w. 1 though The said amount was received by the Respondent as per Ext. 4/1. p.w. 3 also stated that entry Ext. 7/2 in Ext. 7 shows that the overdue amount for The non-payment of the above first instalment dues from p.w. 1 has been entered in The handwriting of the accused in column 12 ad 13 thereof. Before submitting his report Ext. 10 to the Police, p.w. 3 verified all the relevant Cash Books and the Account Ledger in order to find ?if the said amount of Rs. 133.65 p. was entered in any of those books, but be did not find any such entry anywhere Therein. He also made a physical verification of the cash and found that the cash in band tallied with the cash balance shown in the Cash Book. On being satisfied that the said amount was not accounted for any where by the Respondent, be submitted the report Ext. 10 for the prosecution of the Respondent. The Respondent also has not been able to show anything substantial and/or convincing from which it can be said that be might have spent and/or disbursed the said amount in due discharge of his official duties, though he did not enter The said amount in the Cash Books even supposing by mistake. The above mentioned entries in column 12 and 13 in Ext. 7 showing non-payment of the first instalment dues by p.w. 1, militate against the probability of any such lawful disbursement and/or honest mistake on the part of the Respondent. That being so The Respondent has not been able in any manner to account for The aforesaid amount, received from p.w. 1, which he being The Head Clerk-cum-Accountant of the Office, was duty bound to do. The evidence on record discussed above establishes that The Respondent dishonestly misappropriated the said amount. 11. On he above discussions and considerations I feel satisfied that the offence u/s 409, Indian Penal Code is brought home against the Respondent. The evidence on record discussed above establishes that The Respondent dishonestly misappropriated the said amount. 11. On he above discussions and considerations I feel satisfied that the offence u/s 409, Indian Penal Code is brought home against the Respondent. Hence the order of acquittal passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside, and the Respondent is to be convicted u/s 409, Indian Penal Code. 12. On the above findings the impugned order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge is herby set aside and the Respondent is convicted, u/s 409, Indian Penal Code and he is sentenced thereunder to suffer R.I. for a period of two months, and to pay a fine of Rs. 150/- only, in default to undergo R.I. for a month only. The substantive sentence of imprisonment passed in this appeal shall, as per the provisions in the latter part of Section 397(1), Code of Criminal Procedure run concurrently with the substantive sentence of imprisonment passed previously today by me against the Respondent in Government Appeal No. 3 of 1967. The Respondent to surrender immediately to his bail bond to serve out the sentences as imposed above.