JUDGMENT : S. Acharya, J. - This is an appeal u/s 417(1) Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of acquittal D.I. 4-7-1970 passed by Shri A.K. Patra, Sessions Judge, Ganjam Boudh in Criminal Appeal No. 131/68-G. 2. The prosecution case, shortly stated, is that the accused (Respondent herein) at the relevant time was the Chief Instructor-cum-Production Manager of the Ambar Charkha Production Centre at R. Udayagiri (hereinafter referred to as the 'Centre') under the Orissa State Khadi and Village Industries Board (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board'). While working as such he received Rs. 1000/- for constructing the 'Sutar Ghar' for the Centre. But he did not construct the same and misappropriated the aforesaid amount to himself. 3. The accused, while admitting that he received the aforesaid amount of Rs. 1000/- of the above account, has taken plea that he constructed the house for which the aforesaid amount was given to him. 4. The trial Court on an elaborate consideration of the documentary and oral" evidence on record convicted the accused for an offence u/s 408, Indian Penal Code and sentenced him thereunder to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to undergo R.I. for a further period of three months. In appeal, Shri A.K. Patra, the learned Sessions Judge, acquitted the accused by giving him the benefit of doubt. 5. At the outset it must be stated that the appellate judgment is most perfunctory and slipshod. In this case as many as 17 prosecution witnesses and one defence witness have been examined. A large number of documents have also been adduced in evidence. The appellate Court in the first four paragraphs of its judgment has stated about the fact of conviction, the prosecution case, the accused's plea and the number of witnesses examined by the prosecution and the defence. In the fifth paragraph, consisting only of 31 lines in the paper book, some oral and documentary evidence on record has curiously been referred to by way of a mere formality. Out of a large number of documents on record there is casual reference to Exts. 8, 9 and 25 without examining the pros and cons of the same. Discussion and consideration of the voluminous oral evidence has been disposed of in the following manner: There is no reliable prosecution evidence to show that this house belongs to the Revenue Department. Out of a large number of documents on record there is casual reference to Exts. 8, 9 and 25 without examining the pros and cons of the same. Discussion and consideration of the voluminous oral evidence has been disposed of in the following manner: There is no reliable prosecution evidence to show that this house belongs to the Revenue Department. In the absence of any prosecution evidence that this house was built by the Revenue Department, I think the contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant that it might have been built by the accused-Appellant cannot be ruled out. As the appellate Court thought of differing from the conclusion of the trial Court it should have in its judgment stated cogent and convincing reason for the same. Conclusions especially on important and salient features of the case must be based on proper discussion and consideration of the relevant evidence on record. Abrupt conclusions without discussion and assessment of the materials on record are bad in law and the judge disposing of matters in such perfunctory manner does not prove worthy of the confidence which is reposed on the office he holds. 6. To constitute an offence u/s 408, Indian Penal Code it has to be proved: (1) that the accused was the clerk or servant of the person reposing trust; (2) that the accused in such capacity was entrusted with the property in question or with domain over it; (3) that the accused dishonestly - misappropriated that property or converted it to his own use or used it or disposed it of or wilfully suffered some other person to do so, in violation. (i) of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust was to be discharged; or (ii) of any legal contract, express or implied which he had made touching the discharge of such trust. 7. The accused has admitted that he was the Manager of the Centre from 1-4-1960 till August, 1963. He has also admitted that he received Rs. 1000/- for the construction of the Sutar Ghar for the Centre. Besides his admissions to the above effect there is 'ample evidence on record to prove that he was the Chief Inspector-cum-Manager of the Centre and was entrusted' with Rs. 1000/- for the construction of the Sutar Ghar for the Centre. He has also admitted that he received Rs. 1000/- for the construction of the Sutar Ghar for the Centre. Besides his admissions to the above effect there is 'ample evidence on record to prove that he was the Chief Inspector-cum-Manager of the Centre and was entrusted' with Rs. 1000/- for the construction of the Sutar Ghar for the Centre. In view of the above admissions it is needless for me to recount all the evidence on record to the above effect. Thus the first two elements to constitute an offence u/s 408, Indian Penal Code mentioned above have been established in this case against the accused on his own admission. 8. It is undisputed that after termination of the service of the accused from the Centre p.w. 5 along with p.w. 7, a Supervisor of the Department, went to R. Udayagiri and p.w. 5 took over charge of the Centre from the accused on 24-8-1963 in the presence of p.w. 7. p.w. 5 has deposed that while taking overcharge of the Centre he took charge: besides other books and documents, of the Cash Books of the Centre for the period 1-4-1961 to 20-8-1963 and the Cheque Books for the period 4-8-1959 to 3-4-1963, which were maintained, by the accused. At that time he was not given any Cash Book concerning the Sutar Ghar of the Centre by the accused. In his cross-examination he stated that he asked the accused to make over the accounts of expenses for the construction of the Sutar Ghar, but he refused to hand over the said accounts to p.w. 5. He was informed by the accused at that time that he had submitted the accounts in that connection to the Head Office. He (p.w. 5) further stated that at the time of taking over charges, the accused told him that the house where the implements of the Sutar Ghar were kept belonged to the Centre and that house was constructed by the accused for the purpose of the Sutar Ghar. But this witness subsequently came to know that the said house belonged to the local Block and he reported this fact to the Administrative Officer (p.w. 10) of the Board. On being directed by the Administrative Officer he made enquiries about that house from the local Block Development Officer and from him he came to learn that the said house belonged to the Revenue Department. On being directed by the Administrative Officer he made enquiries about that house from the local Block Development Officer and from him he came to learn that the said house belonged to the Revenue Department. P.w. 5 in his report. Ext. 7 mentioned about the non-existence of a Sutar Ghar belonging to the Centre at R. Udayagiri. P. w. 7, the then Supervisor of the Board, who went to R. Udayagiri to help p.w. 5 in taking over charge from the accused as he on an earlier occasion had refused to hand over charge to p.w. 5, has stated that the accused informed him during taking over of the charge that he had not maintained any Cash Book for the amount of Rs. 1000/- advanced to him for the construction of the Sutar Ghar, but he had submitted all the vouchers and accounts in that connection to the Head Office at Bhubaneswar. On this p.w. 7 asked the accused to show him any document in proof of the above fact, but the accused could not produce any such document before p.w. 7. p.w. 7 mentioned all these in his report Ext. 8 to the Head Office, submitted very soon after him coming back to Bhubaneswar from R. Udayagiri. The evidence of p.w. 5 to the effect that he did not receive any accounts or documents relating to the Sutar Ghar from the accused that he did not find any Sutar Ghar at R. Udayagiri belonging to the Centre and that on enquiry he found that the house in which the implements of the Sutar Ghar had been kept belonged to the Revenue Department, has not been successfully assailed' in any convincing manner. In the cross-examination of this witness the defence mostly tried to elicit from him as to whether any specific direction was given to him by the Head Office to take 'charge of the accounts of the Sutar Ghar from the accused. The answers elicited in that connection are of no effect of importance. As p.w. 5 was directed to take over charge of the Centre from the accused it was his duty to take charge of the same in all respects, and it was not necessary for the Head Office to issue specific direction to him specially to this effect. The answers elicited in that connection are of no effect of importance. As p.w. 5 was directed to take over charge of the Centre from the accused it was his duty to take charge of the same in all respects, and it was not necessary for the Head Office to issue specific direction to him specially to this effect. The intrinsic merit of his evidence on relevant and important aspects of the matter has not been successfully assailed by the defence. Nothing significant to support the defence case or to affect the intrinsic merit of the evidence of p.w. 7 could be elicited from him in cross-examination. It was argued that his evidence was not worthy of credence as he did not send any report to the Board from R. Udayaglri as soon as the accused did not submit any accounts for Rs. 1000/- advanced to him for the construction of the Sutar Ghar. Nothing turns out on his admission to the above effect, as soon after the taking of the charge on 24-8-1963 this witness went back to Bhubaneswar and submitted his report Ext. 8 on 27-8-1963 to the Administrative Officer of the Board stating all the above facts. P. w. 3, a Senior Accountant of the Board, apart from other things, has testified to the fact that his office did not receive any vouchers from the accused regarding the said amount of Rs. 1000/- advanced to the accused. p.w. 4, the Junior Head Assistant of the Board, has also stated that as the accused did not submit any vouchers regarding the construction of the Sutar Ghar, a notice was sent to the accused by registered post. He has proved Ext. 10, the office copy of the said notice, and Ext. 11, the acknowledgment of the service of the notice on the accused, He has further stated that the accused who was the Chief Instructor and the Manager of the Centre was to maintain Cash Books and accounts for the Centre and he was also duty-bound to furnish all accounts relating to the Centre to the Head Office. From certain things elicited from him in cross-examination it appears that this witness as well as some other Clerks in the Board office did not carefully discharge their duties in asking and sending reminders to the accused for the submission of accounts relating to the advance of Rs. From certain things elicited from him in cross-examination it appears that this witness as well as some other Clerks in the Board office did not carefully discharge their duties in asking and sending reminders to the accused for the submission of accounts relating to the advance of Rs. 1000/- given to the accused in this connection. The negligence or carelessness on the part of the Clerks in the Board office would not exonerate the accused from his responsibility of furnishing accounts and/or to explain the disbursement of the money taken by him as advance for the purpose stated above. P.w. 4 was later recalled by the prosecution when he deposed to the fact that the accused who was in-charge of the Centre, had been advanced Rs. 1000/- for the construction of the Sutar Ghar and he did not show any accounts for the same in the Cash Book, Ext. 27, maintained by him for the years 1961-62 and also in the Cash Book, Ext. 28, maintained by him for the years 1962-64. He has further stated that in the charge report submitted by the accused, Ext. 29, he did not show anything about the said Sutar Ghar. He has also stated that in the Dispatch Register Ext. 23, maintained by the accused for the period 24-6-1959 to 6-3-1962, nothing is stated about the aforesaid amount advanced to him. He has not at all been cross-examined by the accused after his re-examination by the prosecution. Thus his evidence in re-examination to the above effect stands (sic). The sum total of the evidence of p.w. 6, a Gr. I Assistant of the Board, is to the effect that in the Board office he was in charge of the Sutar Ghar Scheme section and he did not receive any voucher, or information relating to the construction of the Sutar Ghar at R. Udayagiri or any progress report in connection with the Sutar Ghar from the accused. As far as I can see he was examined only by way of abundant precaution to eliminate any possible defence criticism that this witness, dealing with the Sutar Ghar scheme, might have received the accounts and vouchers in connection with the aforesaid amount advanced to the accused. Nothing significant has been elicited from him to efface the effect of his evidence mentioned above. Nothing significant has been elicited from him to efface the effect of his evidence mentioned above. P.w. 1, the Legal Assistant of the Board, on whose report this prosecution has been launched, has deposed to the fact that on enquiry and perusal of certain reports he found that the accused had not submitted any vouchers or accounts for the aforesaid amount advanced to him, and so he filed the prosecution report is directed by p.w. 10. p.w. 10 has deposed to the effect that he by his letter dated 23-3-1965 (Copy Ext. 10) directed the accused to refund Rs. 1000/- advanced to him for the construction of the Sutar Ghar for the Centre, but as he did not comply with the said direction, p.w. 10, after enquiry, directed the Legal Assistant (p.w. 1) to report the matter to the police. The defence criticised his evidence as he admitted in his cross-examination that he did not examine certain registers to ascertain if any vouchers relating to the construction of the Sutar Ghar had been received at the Head Office from the accused. Nothing turns out on his statement to the above effect. The concerned Assistants in the Board have deposed to the fact that the accused did not submit any accounts or vouchers regarding the said Sutar Ghar. The accused who had been entrusted with the money should have taken the initiative to produce the papers or books of account to show that he had spent the money for the purpose for which he had taken the same. He did not produce anything to that effect before p.ws. 5 and 7 at the time of handing over charge of the Centre, nor did he take any steps to call for any document from the Board office showing anything on that account. It is not the case of the accused that he spent that amount for any other lawful expenses of the Centre. In the context of the definite plea taken by him, he without discharging his burden in a matter like this, cannot take shelter merely on the aforesaid negligence of p.w. 10 and some other witnesses as elicited from them. In Jaikrishnadas Manohardas Desai and Another Vs. In the context of the definite plea taken by him, he without discharging his burden in a matter like this, cannot take shelter merely on the aforesaid negligence of p.w. 10 and some other witnesses as elicited from them. In Jaikrishnadas Manohardas Desai and Another Vs. The State of Bombay it has been held that entrustment of property and failure in breach of an obligation to account for the property entrusted, if proved, may in the light of other circumstances, justifiably lead to an inference of dishonest misappropriation or conversion. It has also been observed that where an accused is unable to account or renders an explanation for his failure to account which is untrue, an inference of misappropriation with dishonest intent may readily be made. In the present case the aforesaid inference an justifiably be drawn against the accused on his failure to furnish any account of expenses for the construction of the Sutar Ghar if any. He has not even been able to refer definitely to any document in that correction. Thus he has not been able to dispel the logical inference against him that he misappropriated or converted to his own use the amount entrusted to him for the construction of the Sutar Ghar. 9. As stated above p.w. 5 after taking over charge of the Centre found that the house in which the implements of the Sutar. Ghar had been kept did not belong to the Centre, but it belonged to the Revenue Department. p.w. 7 also stated that on enquiry he came to learn that the house which was utilised by the accused for storing implements for the Sutar Ghar belonged to the Revenue Department. P.w. 9 has proved his letter dt. 25-9-1964 (Ext. 25) to the Administrative Officer of the Board in all respects wherein be wrote that the Douse occupied by the accused for the Centre belonged to the Revenue Department and that no improvement or addition had ever been made to the said house by the accused. p.w. 9 states that this letter was written by him in reply to the query made by the Administrative Officer of the Board to that effect. The appellate judge incorrectly and illegally holds this document as inadmissible by merely saying that p. w 9 did not state anything about the facts in that letter. p.w. 9 states that this letter was written by him in reply to the query made by the Administrative Officer of the Board to that effect. The appellate judge incorrectly and illegally holds this document as inadmissible by merely saying that p. w 9 did not state anything about the facts in that letter. p.w. 9 has not at all been cross-examined and his evidence stands unassailed. The unquestioned evidence of p.ws. 8 and 9 to the effect that the authorities of the Revenue Department never allowed the accused to occupy any of their buildings at R. Udayagiri, considered along with the aforesaid evidence that the house which was occupied by the accused for the purpose of the Sutar Ghar belonged to the Revenue Department, shows that not only the accused did not construct a house for the Sutar Ghar, he also occupied a house of the Revenue Department for that, purpose without any permission from them. In view of the copious evidence to the above effect of so many public servants against whom no enmity or grudge could be successfully attributed and whose evidence otherwise inspires confidence, it becomes difficult for me to place reliance on the evidence of p.w. 11, who having come as a prosecution witness started from the outset to Support the defence case in its entirety and was immediately declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution. Certain statements allegedly made by him to the Investigating Officer and contradictory to what he stated in Court were put to him which he of course denied. But as his said statements have not been proved through the Investigating Officer no notice can be taken of the same. However, his evidence is not in conformity with the evidence of d.w. 1, the only other witness in this case to state that the accused had constructed a house at R. Udayagiri for the Centre. While p.w. 11 stated that the house constructed by the accused had only two cemented verandahs on its two sides, d.w. 1 states that the said house had verandahs on all sides. While p.w. 11 stated that the house constructed by the accused had only two cemented verandahs on its two sides, d.w. 1 states that the said house had verandahs on all sides. According to p.w. 11 the house on one side was 15 to 20 cubits in length and on the other side it was 20 to 25 cubits in length including the verandahs, but d.w. 1 states that the said house had two rooms and verandahs on all sides, and each room was 20 cubits x 8 cubits. Though p.w. 11 stated that the accused spent about Rs. 500/- to Rs. 800/- for the construction of the said house, d.w. 1 states that he might have spent about Rs. 1000/- or Rs. 1200/-. d.w. 1 stated that at the time he deposed in the Court the house was not in existence and the site on which the said house was constructed was lying fallow, but p.w. 11 did not say so. A reading of the evidence of p.w. 11 and d.w. 1 does not inspire confidence in either. 10. On the evidence discussed above it is established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused whilst being the Manager of the Centre was entrusted with Rs. 1000/- by the Board for the construction of a Sutar Ghar for the Centre, and he did not submit any accounts or vouchers in proof of the construction of the said Sutar Ghar, though he was duty bound to furnish such accounts and documents in that connection to the Board. It is also established that the accused had not constructed any house for the Sutar Ghar of the Centre at R. Udayagiri and that the house which was being used by the accused for the purpose of Sutar Ghar of the Centre did not belong to the Centre, but it belonged to the Revenue Department. At the time of handing over charge to p.ws. 5 and 7, the accused gave false information to all concerned that the said house had been constructed by him for the Sutar Ghar of the Centre. His statement in Court that he constructed a house with the said money is also false. At the time of handing over charge to p.ws. 5 and 7, the accused gave false information to all concerned that the said house had been constructed by him for the Sutar Ghar of the Centre. His statement in Court that he constructed a house with the said money is also false. From the above facts and the failure of the accused to furnish any convincing explanation for the disbursement of the money, conclusion is irresistible that the accused dishonestly misappropriated or converted to his own use the said amount of Rs. 1000/-. That being so, the third ingredient necessary to establish an offence u/s 408, Indian Penal Code is also well established in this case. 11. Thus on the findings and conclusions recorded above all the three elements necessary to constitute an offence u/s 408, Indian Penal Code have been very well established in this case and the order of acquittal passed by the Court below, besides being slipshod and perfunctory, is incorrect in all respects and hence has to be set aside. 12. Accordingly the order of acquittal passed by the Court below is set aside and the accused is convicted of an offence u/s 408, Indian Penal Code and is sentenced thereunder to undergo R.I. for four months and to pay a fine of Rs, 1000/-, in default to undergo R.I. for a further period of 1? months. The appeal accordingly is allowed. The accused must surrender to his bail bond to undergo the sentence imposed against him. Final Result : Allowed