JUDGMENT : G.K. Misra, C.J. - The Petitioner has been convicted u/s 409, Indian Penal Code and sentence d to R.I. for three months. A notice to why the sentence should not be enhanced was issued to the Petitioner. The Petitioner, Accordingly, argued revision as if it IS an appeal by placing the entire evidence on record. 2. Prosecution case may be stated in short. The Petitioner was an Accountant in the Revenue Accounts section of Puri Electric Division, Bhubaneswar at the relevant time. On 13-2-1968 he received Rs. 3,479/- in cash and a cheque for Rs. 1,000/- from m M/s Narula Cold Storage (hereinafter to be referred to as the Firm) towards consumption of electricity. The Petitioner granted a hand-receipt (Ext. 1) for the total amount of Rs. 4,479/-. On 28th February, 1968, a sum of Rs. 3,479/- including Rs. 1,000/- encashed under the cheque was deposited in the accounts of the Electric Divisional Office. The Petitioner did not deposit the balance of Rs. 1,0001/- and misappropriated the amount. The matter came to light when In the year 1969 notice was Issued to the Firm to payoff the outstanding electric charges. On receipt of the notice the Firm produced the receipt (Ext. 1) showing payment of the entire dues. On seeing Ext. 1 the Executive Engineer (p.w. 1). verified the guard file of Pucca Receipt Register and found that Rs. 1,0001- was not put into accounts. He, accordingly, submitted the report Ext. 3. This is how the prosecution was launched. Though eight witnesses were examined for the prosecution the Petitioner did not disclose in his cross-examination that the entire amount under Ext. 1 was received by one Shri S.C. Mohapatra, Divisional Cashier who misappropriated Rs. 1,000/- our of it. Such defence was taken for the first time in his examination u/s 342, Code of Criminal Procedure. The Petitioner, however, admitted to have granted the receipt, Ext. 1. 3. Both the Courts below accepted the prosecution story and rejected the defence version. 4. There is no dispute that the Petitioner was a public servant. It is admitted by the Petitioner that he granted the receipt (Ext : 1) on 13-2-1968. Therein he clearly recited to have received Rs. 4,479/. including a cheque for Rs. 1,000/-. 5. Exhibit 2 is the counter-foil of the receipt showing payment of Rs. 3,47/- by Mis. Narula Cold Storage on 28-2-1968 towards arrear electric dues. It is admitted by the Petitioner that he granted the receipt (Ext : 1) on 13-2-1968. Therein he clearly recited to have received Rs. 4,479/. including a cheque for Rs. 1,000/-. 5. Exhibit 2 is the counter-foil of the receipt showing payment of Rs. 3,47/- by Mis. Narula Cold Storage on 28-2-1968 towards arrear electric dues. Exhibit-4 is the collection-sheet of that date. It shows that Rs. 2.479/- was deposited in cash and Rs. 1,000/. was deposited on encashment of a cheque. P.w. 6 is a friend of the Petitioner. On 4th or 5th June, 1969 he sent a telegram to the Petitioner who was on leave at Madras to the effect that a criminal case had been filed against him for defalcation of money. The Petitioner talked to p.w. 6 over trunk telephone from Madras and told him that he was falsely implicated. He further told him that he had deposited Rs. 1,000/- given by Narula Cold Storage with the Revenue Cashier of the Executive Engineer, Bhubaneswar. He. however, asked p.w. 6 to deposit Rs. 1,000/- which the Petitioner had sent by a bank draft. The Petitioner wrote Ext. 9 to p.w. 6 on 6-6-1969. Therein he mentioned the following facts. You know all these things (Rs. 6,OOO/-) happened due to my carelessness and for my having unworthy fellows. Any way past is gone. No use in worrying about it. People may tell so many things but I think you know the truth. In case any body had cheated me further, please see the things are settled and inform through letter. P.w. 6 encashed the bank draft and deposited Rs. 1,000/-. It would thus be seen that the telephonic talk which the Petitioner had with p.w. 6 materially varies from the contents of the letter (Ext. 9) which gives an indication that the Petitioner had misappropriated Rs. 6,0001- of which this Rs. 1,000/- is a part and this he did in combination with others against whom he complained of cheating. In telephonic talk he has stated that Rs. 1,000/- he had deposited with the Revenue Cashier. The conduct of the Petitioner in depositing Rs. 1,0001 about a year after when the matter was detected, clearly leads to the irresistible conclusion that the Petitioner temporarily misappropriated the amount. 6. Mr. In telephonic talk he has stated that Rs. 1,000/- he had deposited with the Revenue Cashier. The conduct of the Petitioner in depositing Rs. 1,0001 about a year after when the matter was detected, clearly leads to the irresistible conclusion that the Petitioner temporarily misappropriated the amount. 6. Mr. Patel very seriously contended that the prosecution should have produced the cash register which might have shown the deposit of the entire amount of Rs. 4,479/-. The prosecution proved its case by production of Exts. 1, 2 and 4 and that was sufficient for proving the prosecution case that the Petitioner received Rs. 4,479/- but deposited Rs. 3,479/- and did not deposit Rs. 1,000/-.' The evidence of the Executive Engineer (p.w. 1), the Revenue Accountant (p.w. 2) clearly established that they verified the office register and were satisfied that Rs. 1,000/- had not been deposited. In fact, notice had been issued to p.w. 7 for payment of arrear dues of Rs. 1,000/- and it is only when he produced Ext. 1, it was found after verification of relevant records that Rs. 1,000/- had not been deposited by the Petitioner. 7. In his statement u/s 342, Code of Criminal Procedure the Petitioner took the stand that though he granted receipt Ext.1 showing receipt by him of Rs. 4.479/- in cash and in cheque, yet he had not received any amount and the same was received by Shri S.C. Mohapatra, Revenue Cashier. P.w. 7 clearly stated that the Revenue Cashier was absent on 2-3-1969 and that is why he paid the amount to the Petitioner. None of the witnesses examined for the prosecution was confronted with such a case. The defence of payment of the cash to Shri S.C. Mohapatra is an after-thought. It was open to the Petitioner to have examined Shri S.C. mohapatra or any other witnesses to establish such defence. 8. On the aforesaid evidence, I am satisfied that the learned Courts below took the correct view in holding that the Petitioner received Rs. 4,479/- including the cheque under the receipt (Ext. 1) but he deposited only Rs. 3,479/- including the cheque and he did not deposit Rs. 1,000/- more. That Rs. 1,000/- he deposit through p.w. 6 by sending a bank draft from Madras when the case was detected. Clearly there was a temporary defalcation of Rs. 1,000/-. 9. Mr. 4,479/- including the cheque under the receipt (Ext. 1) but he deposited only Rs. 3,479/- including the cheque and he did not deposit Rs. 1,000/- more. That Rs. 1,000/- he deposit through p.w. 6 by sending a bank draft from Madras when the case was detected. Clearly there was a temporary defalcation of Rs. 1,000/-. 9. Mr. Patel cited some decisions in support of his contention that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The proposition is so elementary that no authorities are necessary to support it. The onus is on the prosecution to establish beyond reasonable doubt that money was entrusted to the accused in his capacity as a public servant and that the accused dishonestly misappropriated the money in violation of the express or implied contract which he had made touching the discharge of such trust. Prosecution has established the case beyond reasonable doubt as has been analysed fully. The following decisions were cited by Mr. Patel. They are Dial Singh v. Gurdwara Sri Akal Takhat AIR 1923 Lah 328 Saraswati Prasad Vs. Rex S.L. Goswami Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh Nageshwar Pd. Vs. State of Bihar besides some others. It is not necessary to refer to these decisions in detail. It would be sufficient to say that the principles enunciated in these decisions do not militate against my view and do not help the Petitioner in the facts and circumstances of this case. 10. To establish a charge of criminal breach of trust it is not the duty of the prosecution to prove the precise mode of conversion or misappropriation of the money entrusted to the accused. Where the accused is unable to account for the money or renders an explanation for his failure to account which is found untrue, an inference of misappropriation with dishonest intention may, readily, be made. See Krishan Kumar Vs. The Union of India, and Jaikrishnadas Manohardas Desai and Another Vs. The State of Bombay, . 11. A notice had been issued to the Petitioner as to why the sentence should not be enhanced. Criminal breach of trust by public servants is rampant in these days. Honesty of a considerable section of public servants has very much gone down and in cases of this nature the sentence should not be lenient. The State of Bombay, . 11. A notice had been issued to the Petitioner as to why the sentence should not be enhanced. Criminal breach of trust by public servants is rampant in these days. Honesty of a considerable section of public servants has very much gone down and in cases of this nature the sentence should not be lenient. Taking into consideration the circumstances in which the criminal breach of trust was committed in this case, I think the interest of justice would be served if the Petitioner is sentenced to R.I. for one year. 12. The notice for enhancement is made absolute and the sentence is enhanced to R.I. for one year by modifying the judgments of the Courts below. Subject to the enhancement of sentence the criminal revision is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed