JUDGMENT : K.B. Panda, J. - Government Appeal No. 52 of 1976 and Government Appeal No. 64 of 1976 are connected and hence disposed of by this common judgment. They arise in the following backgrounds: Respondent Pravakar Sarangi was serving as a Forester in Jamteli Forest Circle in April, 1970. In that capacity, he had been entrusted with a Permit Book bearing No. 6218 and it was the duty of the Respondent to grant permits to persons making transport of forest goods. The practice was that persons desirous of such transport would state the quantity and the kind of the goods to be transported and on calculation the Respondent would realise money from them and grant a receipt, that is, the original indicating the kind and quantity of goods and the amount paid. The Permit Book contains three copies of the same number. The original is to be granted to the trader payee and the duplicate and triplicate are to be retained in the office in the same Permit Book for verification. 2. The prosecution case is that the Respondent realised a sum of Rs. 105.00 under Permit No. 20 (Ext. 1); a sum of Rs. 115.50p. under Permit No. 70 (Ext. 2); and a sum of Rs. 84.00 under Permit No. 17 (Ext. 4), but deposited only a sum of Rs. 2.65p. (Ext. 13/4); Rs. 10.50p (Ext.13/5); and Rs. 3.27p. (Ext. 13/1) respectively, thus committing criminal breach of trust in respect of the balance amount. There was also a charge u/s 477-A, Indian Penal Code for falsification of accounts inasmuch as the originals and the carbon copies of duplicates and triplicate of the permits did not tally. 3. The plea of the Respondent, however, has not been consistent all through. Substantially his plea was that he had not granted the original receipts to P.Ws. 1 and 3, though he admitted to have written the duplicate and triplicate copies of the same. He admitted to have realised the amounts mentioned in the carbon copies and deposited the same. 4. At first, Shri B.K. Patnaik, Magistrate, 1st Class, Sundergarh tried the Respondent under Sections 409 and 477-A, Indian Penal Code. He convicted the Respondent u/s 409, Indian Penal Code but acquitted him of the charge u/s 477-A, Indian Penal Code on the ground that there has been no sanction for his prosecution. 4. At first, Shri B.K. Patnaik, Magistrate, 1st Class, Sundergarh tried the Respondent under Sections 409 and 477-A, Indian Penal Code. He convicted the Respondent u/s 409, Indian Penal Code but acquitted him of the charge u/s 477-A, Indian Penal Code on the ground that there has been no sanction for his prosecution. As against this acquittal u/s 477-A, Indian Penal Code, the State preferred Government Appeal No. 22 of 1972 and this Court on 31-1-1975 accepted the appeal and remanded the case for disposal according to law as indicated therein. Thereafter Sm. Shanti Debi, Magistrate, 1st Class, Sundergarh heard the case and convicted the Respondent on 28-11-1975 u/s 477-A, Indian Penal Code. The accused preferred an appeal No. 81 of 1976 and the Additional Sessions Judge Shri G.S. Patnaik, Sundergarh accepted the appeal and acquitted him of the charge u/s 477-A, Indian Penal Code. As against that order of acquittal, Government have preferred an appeal which is numbered as 64 of 1976. Against his convicting by the original trying Court u/s 409, Indian Penal Code, the Respondent preferred Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 1972 and Shri G.S. Patnaik, Additional Sessions Judge who heard it, accepted the appeal and acquitted the Respondent of the charge u/s 409, Indian Penal Code on 18-12-1975. Government have preferred an appeal numbered 52 of 1976 as against that order of acquittal of the charge u/s 409, Indian Penal Code. So it stated here that since the Respondent was initially tried under both the charges in the same Court, the evidence and the exhibits in both the appeals are identical. 5. There were ten witnesses for the prosecution and none for the defence. The material witnesses are P.Ws. 1 and 3, two merchants who deposited money for transport of forest goods and were granted the receipts (Exts. 1, 2 and 4). P.W. 2 is the brother of P.W. 1 and P.W. 5 is the brother of P.W. 3. The statement of P.W. 5 is material for, it reveals that the Respondent had approached him (P.W. 5) for return of the original receipt granted by him to P.W. 3 for verification in the office. P.W. 8 is a Ranger of the Forest Department. His evidence is very material inasmuch as he proved the signature of the Respondent and stated how under Ext. P.W. 8 is a Ranger of the Forest Department. His evidence is very material inasmuch as he proved the signature of the Respondent and stated how under Ext. 12, the Respondent confessed his guilt and returned the defalcated amount under Chalan No. 13 dated 2-5-1970 (Ext. 11). 6. The learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the Respondent of the charges on the ground that the prosecution has not proved the entrustment of the Permit Book by the authorities to the Respondent for realisation of money; that P.Ws. 1 and 3 are not in a position to identify the hand-writing of the Respondent; and that Ext. 12 was extracted under undue pressure and undue influence. The sole point for determination is if these findings of the Additional Sessions Judge are perverse to justify interference. 7. So far as the finding of the learned lower Court that the prosecution has failed to establish entrustment of the Permit Book bearing No. 6218, I may say that he is in great error. Here the case is criminal breach of trust in respect of the money realised from P.Ws. 1 and 3. The question is not criminal breach of trust in respect of the Permit Book No. 6218. It is nobody's case that this book was not entrusted to the Respondent for realisation of money horn the merchants who wanted transport of forest goods. The Respondent himself admits to have issued permits and had filled up carbon copies of Receipt Nos. 20, 70 and 17 both duplicate and triplicate which are in the Permit Book itself. Therefore, I have no hesitation in holding that the Additional Sessions Judge has misdirected himself in lying stress on the evidence of entrustment of the Permit Book. 8. P.Ws. 1 and 3 are strangers to Respondent and there is no reason why they would falsely implicate him. Their evidence is clear in that they paid higher amounts such as Rs. 105.00, Rs. 115.50p and Rs. 8400 and received the original receipts (Exts. 1, 2 and 4). The reason assigned by the learned lower Court that the Respondent could not have ventured to falsify the accounts in presence of P.Ws. 1 and 3 is not convincing. 9. To establish the charges u/s 409 as well as 477-A, which are interdependent, the prosecution adduces oral evidence of' P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 8, besides relying on the three original permit Nos. 1 and 3 is not convincing. 9. To establish the charges u/s 409 as well as 477-A, which are interdependent, the prosecution adduces oral evidence of' P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 8, besides relying on the three original permit Nos. 20, 70 and 17 (Exts. 1, 2 and 4) respectively. These three originals admittedly do not tally with the duplicates and triplicates maintained in the Permit Book No. 6218. That the originals, that is, Permit Nos. 20, 70 and 17 were from this Permit Book goes without doubt for, they bear the same book number 6218. 10. The whole question for consideration was if this evidence was adequate to establish the case against the accused beyond all possibility of doubt. P.W. 1 paid Rs. 105.00 under Ext. 1 and Rs. 115.50p. under Ext. 2 and P.W. 3 paid Rs. 84.00 under Ext. 4. There is no reason why they would falsely depose that they had not paid any such amount. Besides, their evidence is supported by the documentary evidence such as Exts. 1, 2 and 4 which are from the Permit Book No. 6218 bearing permit Nos. 20, 70 and 17. When there is nothing to discard their evidence, this fact has to be accepted as true beyond doubt. 11. Coming to the question whether there has been any falsification of accounts, the material documents are Exts. 1, 2 and 4, that is the originals which are to be compared with their duplicates and triplicates appearing in the Permit Book No. 6218. Evidently they do not agree 10 respect of both the sums deposited as well as on certain other details. The Respondent admits to have in his custody Permit Book No. 6218 and had incorporated in the duplicates and the triplicates the entries therein. From this it would follow that he had also made the necessary entries in the originals. Were it otherwise, it was to his person and peculiar knowledge and therefore it was for him to establish as to how the originals do not agree with the carbon copies in duplicates and triplicates. Initially the Respondent had admitted the duplicates and triplicates to have been written by him. But after the matter was remanded and he was so questioned, he denied to have written the duplicates and triplicates found in the Permit Book. Initially the Respondent had admitted the duplicates and triplicates to have been written by him. But after the matter was remanded and he was so questioned, he denied to have written the duplicates and triplicates found in the Permit Book. When the Respondent was in custody of the Permit' Book and had written the duplicates and the triplicates of the permits in question, as admitted by him at one stage, the charge of falsification of accounts is self-evident. The Ranger P.W. 8 has identified the signature of the Respondent and has said how the Respondent had made a petition (Ext. 12) wherein he admitted his guilt and deposited the defalcated amount in Challan No. 13 on 2-5-1970 under Ext. 11. However, the learned lower Court holds it not to be voluntary and I am not inclined to disturb this finding particularly when the question has not been put to the Respondent in his examination u/s 313, Code of Criminal Procedure. But all the same, this may be taken as relevant u/s 8 of the Evidence Act showing his conduct. 12. In view of the unimpeachable oral and documentary evidence, the charges of criminal breach of trust and falsification of accounts are to be held as well proved beyond all reasonable doubt and the order of acquittal being very vulnerable has to be set aside. In consequence, therefore, I accept both the appeals, set aside the order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and convict the Respondent under Sections 409, and 477-A, Indian Penal Code. In view of the fact that the amount in respect of which criminal breach of trust is committed is poultry, that he is facing trial in various Courts since 1970 and that be has already deposited the defalcated amount, I am inclined to take a lenient view of the matter and while convicting the Respondent u/s 409, Indian Penal Code sentence him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days and to pay a fine of Rs. 501- (Rupees fifty only), in default to undergo rigorous -imprisonment for four days. I also convict the Respondent u/s 477-A, Indian Penal Code and sentence him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days, and to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- (Rupees fifty only) in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four days, the sentences of imprisonment to run concurrently. Both the appeals are allowed. I also convict the Respondent u/s 477-A, Indian Penal Code and sentence him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days, and to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- (Rupees fifty only) in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four days, the sentences of imprisonment to run concurrently. Both the appeals are allowed. Final Result : Allowed