JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition of accused Laxman Singh is directed against the appellate judgement of Additional Sessions Judge No.2 Sri Ganganagar, dated April 19, 1971, whereby he has maintained the conviction of the petitioner for an offence under section 409, Indian Penal Code, but reduced the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone by him. The sentence of fine has also been reduced to Rs. 100/-. The petitioner was posted as a Patwari in patwar circle, Kishanasar, Tehsil Anoopgarh. It was alleged that he collected various sums of money on behalf of the State, but committed criminal breach of trust for a sum of Rs. 20.79 in respect of receipt books number 58847 and 45830. The precise allegation was that while the petitioner collected Rs. 84/- as evidenced by counterfoils Exhibits P.8 or receipt book number 58847, he deposited Rs. 77/- in the Treasury & embezzled the balance of Rs. 7/-. It was also alleged that while the petitioner collected Rs. 8.79 as evidenced by counter foils Exhibits P.12 to P.18 of receipt book number 45830, he did not deposit any part thereof in the State Treasury and embezzled the money. The trial court found the petitioner guilty of the offence under section 409, Indian Penal Code and, as has been stated, while his conviction has been upheld by the appellate court, the sentence has been reduced to the extent mentioned above. 2. It has been argued by Mr. Tikku appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the conviction of the accused is not justified by the evidence on the record & should be set aside. I shall deal with the argument separately in respect of each of the two receipt books. 3. So far as receipt book number 58847 is concerned, the allegation is that while the accused received Rs. 84/- as evidenced by counter foils Exhibits P.3 to P.8, from various persons, he deposited only Rs. 77/- and embezzled the balance of Rs. 7/-. Naib Tehsildar Sohan Lal PW/1 has stated that the petitioner issued the receipts Ex. P.3 to Ex. P.8 and that he signed them all except receipt Ex. P.4. Mr. Tikku has not been able to advance any satisfactory reason why the statement of Sohan Lal should not be believed. Veer Singh PW/3 is another important witness. 7/-. Naib Tehsildar Sohan Lal PW/1 has stated that the petitioner issued the receipts Ex. P.3 to Ex. P.8 and that he signed them all except receipt Ex. P.4. Mr. Tikku has not been able to advance any satisfactory reason why the statement of Sohan Lal should not be believed. Veer Singh PW/3 is another important witness. He was working as Assistant Officer, Kanugo, & has stated that he was familiar with the handwriting of the accused. He has stated that counter foils Ex. P.4 to Ex. P.8 are in the handwriting of the accused and that, out of these, Ex. P.5 to Ex. P.8 are signed by him. There is no reason to disbelieve this statement also. Then the prosecution has examined Udaram PW/4, Heeraram PW/7, Nazir Khan PW/8 and Fateh Mohammed PW/9 to prove the payments. It has thus been proved beyond doubt that the accused was entrusted with the sum of Rs. 84/- as stated in the counter foils Ex. P.3 to Ex. P.8. The charge against him was that, out of that amount, he deposits Rs. 77/- only, and embezzled the balance of Rs. 7/-. The deposits have been proved by Ex. P.9 and Ex. P.10, and also by the statement of Veer Singh PW/3. It is also significant that the petitioner did not venture to take the plea that he deposited Rs. 84/- & not merely Rs. 77/-. On that he didn't say that he didn't receive Rs. 84/- & received only Rs. 77/-. On the other hand, he has admitted the counter foils to be in his handwriting. The evidence is therefore, sufficient to prove that the accused committed criminal breach of trust in respect of the balance of Rs. 7/- in so far as the aforesaid counter foils of receipt book number 58847 is concerned. It may be mentioned that Mr. Tikku tried to argue that receipt of Rs. 77/- referred to in counter-foil Ex.P.7 cannot be said to have been established by the prosecution because its counter-foil has not been produced at the trial. The argument is untenable for two reasons. Firstly, it is the counter foil which evidences the receipt of money, on behalf of the State, in so far as accused is concerned, and it was for it. The argument is untenable for two reasons. Firstly, it is the counter foil which evidences the receipt of money, on behalf of the State, in so far as accused is concerned, and it was for it. Secondly, the accused has not found it possible to take the plea that he did not issue the counter foil, or that a lesser amount was mentioned in it. Nothing could therefore turn on the failure of the prosecution to trace out the counter foil of receipt Ex. P.7. 4. As regards receipt book number 45830, it may be recalled that the allegation was that the petitioner received Rs. 8.79 as stated in counter foils Ex. P.12 to Ex. P.18. The statement of Sohan Lal PW/1 goes to show that it was the petitioner who issued all the receipts and also signed counter foils Ex.P.12. The statement of Veer Singh PW/2 is also relevant, for it corroborates the testimony of Sohan Lal PW/1. The prosecution has also examined Chamba Singh PW/5 and Peda Singh PW/6 to prove some of the payments. It has thus been established that counterfoils Ex. P.12 to Ex. P.18 were issued by the accused in token of the receipt of the total sum of Rs. 8.79. It is the case of the prosecution that no part of the amount was deposited by the accused in the State treasury & that it was embezzled by him. The accused has not found it possible to take the plea that he had deposited the money & he has not led any evidence in his defence to prove the deposit of Rs. 8.79 in the treasury. There is therefore, nothing wrong if the petitioner has been found guilty of criminal breach of trust in respect of Rs. 8.79 also. 5. There is thus, no force in this revision petition, and it is dismissed. *******