JUDGMENT : K.B. Panda, J. - This is an appeal filed by the State against an order of acquittal passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Juditial), Sambalpur Sundargarh in a case wherein the Respondent Satyandranath Misra stood charged u/s 409, Indian Penal Code on the allegation of having committed criminal breach of trust in respect of Rs. 13,481.33 paise while working is Assistant Nazir of Jharsuguda Tahasil Office. 2. The case against the accused Respondent was thus: P.w. 9 was the Nazir of the Tahasil Office, Jharsuguda in the year 1967. As he proceeded on earned leave for 20 days, under orders of the Tahasildar (p.w. 1) the Respondent who was the Assistant Nazir remained in charge of the Nazir with effect from 19-12-1967. p.w. 9 while handing over charge to the Respondent made over a cash of Rs. 12,984.53 paise out of which the Respondent received a cash of Rs. 10,024.00 and the balance of Rs. 2,960.00 was in the double lock. The key of the double lock that remained with the Nazir was also made over to the Respondent. This fact of making over and taking over of the cash was duly entered in the cash book (Ext. 1). The relevant endorsements to the effect are Ext. 1/4 made by p.w. 9 and Ext. 1/5 made by the Respondent in token of having received charge of the cash mentioned therein. As per rules the Tahasildar (p.w. 1) was to conduct physical verification of the cash on the last day of the month. Accordingly, on 31-12-1967 the said verification was due. But before it was done, at 9 p.m. which was a Sunday the Respondent informed p.w. 1 that the cash was short in the steel almirah. p.w. 1 immediately went to the Nizarat room where the Respondent told him that some bundle of notes of 100 and 10 rupee denominations were missing from the almirah. The Respondent then submitted to p.w. 1 a note about the shortage as per Ext. 5. So p.w. 1 sent for the Head Clerk of the office (p.w. 7). The Respondent was directed to produce cash register (Ext. 1) and all other connected registers relating to the maintenance of the accounts. It was detected that the cash book had not been maintained after 23-12-1967. The Respondent was directed to fill up the accounts in the cash book upto 30-12-1967. The Respondent was directed to produce cash register (Ext. 1) and all other connected registers relating to the maintenance of the accounts. It was detected that the cash book had not been maintained after 23-12-1967. The Respondent was directed to fill up the accounts in the cash book upto 30-12-1967. The Head Clerk (p.w. 7) checked the accounts and the Respondent was called upon to produce the entire cash with him. Both p.ws. 1 and 7 counted the cash and they found it to be Rs. 3554.44 paise though as per cash book the total cash balance at the end of 30-12-1967 was Rs. 19,995.77 paise. A sum of Rs. 2960/- which was in the double lock on the date when the Respondent received charge from p.w. 9 was in tact and taking into account" that amount the total cash available with the Respondent on 31-12-1967 was only Rs. 6,514.44 paise. After this verification and check p.w. 1 mentioned the result of his verification in the cash book as per Ext. 1/1. p.w. 1 also sent a written report (Ext. 2) to the Jharsuguda Police Station clearly mentioning therein that there was shortage of Government cash to the tune of Rs. 13,481.33 paise. This was treated as F.I.R. and the Respondent was charge-sheeted u/s 409, Indian Penal Code ending in his acquittal which has occasioned this appeal. 3. The plea of the Respondent as could be gathered from record is that he was only a Lower Division Clerk but not the Assistant Nazir; that he had not furnished any cash security to work as Assistant Nazir; that he did not actually receive any cash though he made an endorsement to that effect in the cash book under Ext. 1/5; that he did so under the instructions of the Nazir (p.w. 9) who told him that he would return from leave shortly and there should be no difficulty; that at the instance of the Tahasildar (p. w. 1) he felt obliged to give a shortage report (Ext. 5); that p.w. 9 had not made over any key to him while making over charge; that he was merely in charge of the formal routine work: of the Nazir and no money and key had been entrusted to him; and that the case had been started mischievously to cover up the shortage in cash committed by others utilising him as a scapegoat. 4. 4. There are ten witnesses for the prosecution and none for the defence. Out of the p.ws. the Head of the Tahasil Office is the Tahasildar (p.w. 1). p.w. 2 is the Chowkidar of the office, p.w. 3 is the peon and p.w. 5 is a clerk of the Tahasil Office. P.w. 6 is the Police constable on duty on the evening of 30-12-1967 when the Respondent admittedly (in the evening) had gone to the office with two of his friends and did something in the Nizarat office room. p.w. 7 is the Head Clerk of the Office who was sent for on 31-12-1967 and the cash book Ext. 1 which was incomplete was brought up to date, cash checked, verified and the actual shortage quantified. P.ws. 4 and 8 are two outsiders and friends who had accompanied the Respondent on 30.12.1967 evening, p.w. 9 is the permanent Nazir who was on leave and p.w. 10 is the Investigating Officer. 5. The shortage in the cash is not challenged. The question for consideration was if the prosecution had beyond doubt established entrustment of the cash to the Respondent, which he was bound to account for. 6. The learned lower Court acquitted the accused on the finding that the prosecution failed to prove satisfactorily that a sum of Rs. 12,984.53 paise was entrusted to the Respondent on 19-12-1967. He came to this finding on the ground that the Tahasildar was not present at the time of the handing over the charge on 19-12-1967; that there is no mention about the amount kept in the double lock that the statement of p.w. 9 about giving a cash of Rs. 10,024.53 paise to the Respondent has not been corroborated by anybody; and that the checking officer, namely, the Head Clerk (p.w. 7) was not present when the making over and taking over of the cash was effected by the p.w. 9 to the Respondent. From this evidence he held that: The explanation of the accused in this connection that he did not receive any sum from p.w. 9 on 19-12-1967 cannot be thrown out in the circumstances stated above. 'The accused has not furnished any security to handle, cash as such it is very doubtful that; he would be allowed to handle so much of amount by his superior officer. 'The accused has not furnished any security to handle, cash as such it is very doubtful that; he would be allowed to handle so much of amount by his superior officer. The entries in the account book between 19-12-1967 and 30-12-1967 would go, to show that the accused was not well conversant with the procedure of maintaining cash register and for that reason the entries in the cash register were subsequently, corrected and re-corrected by the Head Clerk but not on the due dates. In the circumstances it is reasonable and most probable to believe the version of the accused that he was simply maintaining the cash register under the instruction of the Head Clerk and he endorsed the entries regarding receipt of the sum on good faith that the Nazir would return in short time and would manage his affairs. Of course, the accused has given a report on 30-1.1965 (Ext. 5) to the effect that there was some sum in the almirah out of which some amount were stolen. The accused has stated that he submitted such a report to p.w. 1 under the influence and guidance of the Tahasildar (p.w. 1). Of course p.w. 1 has not been cross-examined by him on this score. Nevertheless, his version cannot be ruled out and held to be false. x x x The accused being a very young man aged about 22 to 23 years, it is very likely that a report like Ext. 5 might have been taken from him under the influence of p.w. 1 and his staff to cover up their laches since the prosecution has failed to prove the actual amount entrusted and defalcated by the accused for which there is no proof. The entries in the cash book between 19-12-1967 and 30-12-1967 having been corrected and re-corrected by the Head Clerk, it is also not safe to rely on those entries to come to a finding that the accused received any amount during the said period and disbursed any amount. x x x Of course, the entries in the cash register during this period shows that more amount had been expended than the sum received daring the said period which may indicate that the accused had received some amount from p.w. 9 on 19-12-1967, otherwise he could have not expended more than the sum received during this period. x x x Of course, the entries in the cash register during this period shows that more amount had been expended than the sum received daring the said period which may indicate that the accused had received some amount from p.w. 9 on 19-12-1967, otherwise he could have not expended more than the sum received during this period. But the entries during this period having not been proved and also for the reasons stated above and the explanation of the accused given in this connection, I am of the view that they should not be taken into consideration while deciding the fact regarding the entrustment of the sum of Rs. 12984.53 to the accused on 19-12-1967 even though, the same would arose some suspicion against the conduct of the accused that he might have defalcated some amount. The prosecution has also examined some witnesses to show that the accused had come to his office in the evening of 30-12-1967. The accused had also admitted the same but none of the p.ws. has stated that the accused had taken some amount from the almirah containing cash on that evening. This reasoning of the learned lower Court, as would be indicated hereafter is far from sound. 7. Mr. Behuria, appearing on behalf of the Respondent., only reiterated some of the reasonings advanced by the learned lower Court and contended that if at all it will be a case of civil liability without justifying a criminal action and that this Court while hearing an appeal against an order of acquittal should be very slow in interfering with the finding of the Court below as has been laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court. I am very much conscious of the well settled principle of law in what circumstances interference is justified. The law on the point is not at all ambulatory and the scope of an appeal against an order of acquittal, is now well settled by the decision of the Supreme Court in Sanwat Singh and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan. I am very much conscious of the well settled principle of law in what circumstances interference is justified. The law on the point is not at all ambulatory and the scope of an appeal against an order of acquittal, is now well settled by the decision of the Supreme Court in Sanwat Singh and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan. The legal position is (1) an appellate Court has full powers to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded; (2) the principles laid down in Sheo Swarup and Others vs. King Emperor, afforded a correct guide for the appellate Court's approach to a case disposing of such an appeal; (3) the different phraseology used in the judgments of the Supreme Court such as (a) "substantial and compelling reasons"; (b) "good and sufficiently cogent reasons"; (c) "strong reasons" are not intended to curtail the undoubted power of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal to review the entire evidence and to come to its own conclusion, but in doing so it should not only consider every matter on record having a bearing on the questions of fact and the reasons given by the Court below in support of its order of acquittal but should express the reasons in its judgment which led it to hold that the acquittal was not justified. To these tests may be added that the trial Court had the benefit of seeing the witnesses in the witness box and the presumption of innocence is not weakened by the order of acquittal. If two reasonable conclusions can be reached on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate Court should not disturb the findings of the trial Court. Keeping the above principle in view, I would now proceed to examine the correctness of the finding of the learned Court below. The bulk of the evidence from the prosecution side is documentary. It is worthwhile at this stage to refer to the stand taken by the Respondent in his 342, Code of Criminal Procedure examination. To the incriminating circumstances put to him he has stated thus: There is no post of Assistant Nazir. I was a L.D.C. throughout. I was in charge of routine duties of Nazir during his absence from 19-12-1967. x x x I did not take over charge of the cash. To the incriminating circumstances put to him he has stated thus: There is no post of Assistant Nazir. I was a L.D.C. throughout. I was in charge of routine duties of Nazir during his absence from 19-12-1967. x x x I did not take over charge of the cash. x x x I did not take over charge of the aforesaid cash but on the request of p.w. 1, I simply endorsed in the cash book to have received charge of the aforesaid cash. But in fact the aforesaid amount was neither spawn nor given time. I was not given the keys of the almirahs containing the cash. I was writing the cash book under the diretion of the Head Clerk Tribikram Qadhia and, accordingly, I wrote the same. x x x x I cannot say if actually there was any shortage of cash since the cash was incharge of p.w.9 and p.w. 1. J x x x Yes, I had been to that room in that evening to bring a greeting card and some envelops which 1 had left there. I did not open the almirah containing cash. x x x Yes, I have written Ext. 5 but under the dictation of p.w. 1. x x x P.w. 9 is speaking falsehood to save himself. He never handed over any cash to me when he went on leave. He told me that he would return within ten days and there would be no difficulty in meeting the charge since some amount left with the Tahasildar. Further, I had not furnished security to handle cash. So on good faith, I believed him and endorsed receipt of the cash in cash book. He did not give me the key of almirah containing cash. Similarly, I wrote Ext. 5 under the influence and guidance of p.w. 1. I have been falsely implicated in this case. 8. In view of the defence the question for consideration is if really no money was entrusted to the Respondent, but in good faith believing p.w. 9 he signed the cash book in token of having received that heavy amount nearing thirteen thousand. From his statement u/s 342, Code of Criminal Procedure it is patent that he had every reason to have been suspicious and normally should have tried to keep himself away from what was prima facie shady. From his statement u/s 342, Code of Criminal Procedure it is patent that he had every reason to have been suspicious and normally should have tried to keep himself away from what was prima facie shady. On his own admission p.w. 9 at that the had given sufficient hints that the cash was not in (sic); that some of the cash had remained with the Tahasildar; and that there would be no difficulty for him inasmuch as he would soon return to duty to shoulder the responsibility. In this background it has to be seen how far on evidence the prosecution story of entrustment the defence plea that it was all a make-belief paper transaction to cover up the misdeeds of p.ws. 1 and 9 at the expense of the Respondent has to be accepted. 9. The prosecution has relied on the following documentary evidence regarding the actual entrustment of the cash in hand to the Respondent by the Nazir (p.w. 9). Ext. 1 is the cash book. On 19-12-1967 when p.w. 9 made over charge he made the following endorsement under Ext. 1/4: Hand over charge of Rs. 12,984.53 (Rupees twelve thousand nine hundred eighty four and paise fifty three) to Shri S.N. Mishra, Assistant Nazir of the Officer Sd/ - Illegible 19-12-1967. The Respondent took over charge mentioning under Ext. 1/5 thus: Received the above charge of Rs. 12,984.53 (Rupees twelve thousand nine hundred-eighty four and' paise fifty three) only from Sri N. Prasad, Nazir of this office. Sd/ - Satd. Mishra. 19-12-1967. This has been duly signed the same day by the Head Clerk and by the Tahasildar. The subsequent entries both on the income side and expenditure side on the following dates at least till 23rd have been admittedly filled in by the Respondent and checked by the Head Clerk and countersigned by the Tahasildar at the end of the days' transaction. There is a seal for Nazir, Tahasil Office, Jharsuguda and the Respondent has put, in his handwriting at some places 'I/C' meaning in charge after the stamped word 'Nazir'. This is clear from the entries of 20-12 and 21-12 but not of subsequent dates. There is a seal for Nazir, Tahasil Office, Jharsuguda and the Respondent has put, in his handwriting at some places 'I/C' meaning in charge after the stamped word 'Nazir'. This is clear from the entries of 20-12 and 21-12 but not of subsequent dates. It was the prosecution case that on the date of checking on 31-12-1967 it was found that the cash book had been maintained up to the end of 23rd December and so at the direction of p.w. 1 the Respondent filled it and the Head Clerk (p.w. 7) checked it the same day for all the back dates. The subsequent entries of 26th, 27th, 28th and 29th show that the seal of the Nazir has not been put under the signature of the Respondent. The Respondent admits that those entries are in his hand but he did it according to the dictation of p.w. 7. After the shortage was detected p.w. 1 made the following endorsement as per Ext. 1/1: Verified and found Rs. 13,481.33 (Rupees thirteen thousand four hundred eighty one and thirty three paise only short of the book balance of Rs. 19995.77. Sd/ - B.B. Mishra 31-12-1967 Tahasildar. Under Ext. 1/2, the Sub-divisional Officer, Sadar also made similar remark noting the amount in cash and the value of the vouchers indicating the exact shortage. Ext. 1/3 is the remark of the Sub-divisional Officer, Sadar which need be quoted: Of the total sum of Rs. 6514.44 made available for physical verification a sum of Rs. 2960/- (Two thousand nine hundred and sixty only, was produced before me from the embedded iron safe and a sum of Rs. 3554.44 (Three thousand five hundred fifty four/44P) was produced before me by the Assistant Nazir. The cash book should not be transferred further. Sd/ - Illegible, 31-12-1967 S.D.O., Sadar. The next documentary evidence in importance is the report submitted by the Respondent when he first detected the shortage. It is marked Ext. 5 and runs thus: Submitted to Tahasildar for favour of information and necessary action. Today I came to office at 8.15 A.M. in connection with the cash verification of the Nizarat scheduled to be conducted by you. I opened the lock of the door and entered into the room. But to my utter surprise I found that the steel Almirah 10 which cash was kept is unlocked. Today I came to office at 8.15 A.M. in connection with the cash verification of the Nizarat scheduled to be conducted by you. I opened the lock of the door and entered into the room. But to my utter surprise I found that the steel Almirah 10 which cash was kept is unlocked. While opening the Almirah I could notice that the notes of smaller denomination like one rupee and two rupee notes were spread in side the upper self of the steel Almirah. As regards the higher denomination like one hundred Rupees, ten Rupees and some of the bundles of five Rupee notes are missing, Sd/. B.P. Misra 31-12-1967. Below it is the following endorsement under Ext. 5/2: I had come to the Nizarat room at about 7 P.M. on 30-12-1967 and scrutinised the cash in the steel Almirah and found the cash in tact. On receipt of this report from the Respondent, sent the following information to the P.S. under Ext. 2: Office of the Tahasildar, Jharsuguda. No. 6660 Dt. 31-12-1967. To The Officer-in-charge, Jharsuguda Police Station, Sub : Suspected defalcation of Government Money. Sir, It was reported to me at 9 A.M. today by Shri S.N. Misra, Assistant Nazir that some Cash has been found short from the steel Almirah inside the Nizarat room. In this connection I am to say that Shri S.N. Mishra, Assistant Nazir has been in charge of the Nizarat in the leave absence of Shri N. Prasad, Nazir since 19-12-1967. A Major portion of the cash was kept in the steel almirah inside the Nizarat room and the keys of both the almirah and the room were with Sri. S.N. Misra. On my verification I found Rs. 13,481.33 (Rupees thirteen thousand four hundred eighty one and thirty three paise only) short as against the book balance of Rs. 19,995.77 (Rupees nineteen thousand nine hundred ninety five and seventy seven paise only). Necessary action may please be taken in the matter. Sd/ - B.B. Misra, Tahasildar, Jharsuguda. Received at 5 P.M. treated it as F.I.R. and took up the investigation. Sd/ - Illegible 31-12-1967 10. The above documentary evidence, unmistakably points to the fact that the Respondent remained in charge of the Nizarat, Tahasil Office, Jharsuguda during the absence of p.w. 9 from 19-12-1967. He was also made over charge of the cash out of which Rs. Received at 5 P.M. treated it as F.I.R. and took up the investigation. Sd/ - Illegible 31-12-1967 10. The above documentary evidence, unmistakably points to the fact that the Respondent remained in charge of the Nizarat, Tahasil Office, Jharsuguda during the absence of p.w. 9 from 19-12-1967. He was also made over charge of the cash out of which Rs. 2960/- was in the double lock (one key remaining with the Nazir and the other with the Tahasildar). The balance amount was in an Iron Almirah within the Nizarat Room which was made over to the Respondent along with the key of the Almirah. The consistent case of the prosecution is that the amount of Rs. 2960/- that was in the double lock i.e. in the Iron Chest embedded, had not been opened at the time of giving delivery of the cash to the Respondent, and it is the specific case of the prosecution also that the amount plus the amount actually given delivery the verification on 31-12-1967 amounted to only Rs. 6514.44. Thus the actual shortage was worked out with reference to the closing book balance of 30-12-1967 at Rs. 13.481.33. If really the Respondent was not in charge of the cash, as all aged by him, there was no occasion or need for him to be present for the "cash verification scheduled for 31-12-1967" and more so if he had not the key of the Nizarat room or of the steel almirah within the room in where the cash had been kept. In that event it would have been normally the lookout of p.w. 1 as to how he would conduct the verification. Further, if as alleged by the defence, p.w. 1 was in league with p.w. 9, it would be for them i.e. p.ws. 1 and 9 to do the verification clandestinely and not be 50 foolhardy as do so openly as has been done. Again if really the Respondent was not dealing with the cash or had not the key with him, it is difficult to accept that he would be so foolish as to make the entries in the cash book regarding receipts and expenditure without in fact doing so for days together. Again if really the Respondent was not dealing with the cash or had not the key with him, it is difficult to accept that he would be so foolish as to make the entries in the cash book regarding receipts and expenditure without in fact doing so for days together. Further more, the endorsement that he had come to the office in the evening of 30-12-1967 and found the cash in tact is another very damaging acknowledgment incompatible with his plea that he was a mere Show-boy while the real cash was being transacted by others. His explanation that he was just a Lower Division Clerk and had not furnished any security to handle the cash is a mere technical plea that does not come to his rescue in any way. He has himself styled himself at certain places, as already indicated, in the cash book as the Nazir-in charge. p.w. 1 has also reported to the Police which has been used as F. I. R. that the Respondent was Nazir-in-charge and that IS also the endorsement of the Sub-divisional Officer in the cash book. Lastly, that is very much consistent with his conduct in coming to the office early on 31-12-1967 to offer cash for verification by p.w. The mere fact that he had not furnished any cash security would not in any way turn the balance in his favour, if otherwise it is proved that, a public servant as he admittedly was, had been entrusted with certain cash and as such it was his duty to account for the same. To sum up, the documentary evidence is very much consistent with his conduct during the period from 19-12-1967 till 30.12-1967 and on the date of verification and detection of the shortage resulting in the lodging of the F. I. R. on 31.12-1967 while both are incompatible with his plea of innocence. 12. Coming to the oral evidence the Tahasildar p.w. 1 has stated how on 31-12-1967 he was informed by the office peon that the Respondent was in the office and that the Respondent had deputed him (the peon) to intimate him that the cash of the almirah was found short. He stated further that on this information he ran to the office and found the accused Respondent sitting inside the Nizarat room and narrated that most of the notes of higher denomination were missing. He stated further that on this information he ran to the office and found the accused Respondent sitting inside the Nizarat room and narrated that most of the notes of higher denomination were missing. P.w. 1 found that the cash book had been maintained till the end of 23-12-1967. The following two days were holidays. He sent for the Head Clerk and with his assistance along with the accused-Respondent made the cash book up-to-date and found the available cash to be Rs. 3554.44. He also stated that for the period from 19-12-1967 till 31-12-1967 the cash book had not been put up to him and he noted the result of his verification as per endorsement (Ext. 1/l). He also sent a report to the P.S. Jharsuguda, informed the Collector, the Commissioner, the A.G. Orissa and the S.D.O. Sambilpur about the shortage, which normally any officer in that situation would do. Yet the Respondent desires the Court to believe that though innocent he tolerated all this move against him meekly without a word of protest. That very date the S.D.O. came at about 7 P.M. and, satisfied himself about the shortage and made necessary endorsements in the cash book. In cross examination p.w. 1 stated that the Respondent was working as Assistant Nazir before his joining as Tahasildar and so he could not say, without reference to records as to when the Respondent really joined as Assistant Nazir and if time was allowed he would produce that as well as the sanction order of the post of Assistant Nazir in his Tahasil Office. No where it was suggested to him that he was in league with p.w. 9 and had misappropriated the amount as appears to be the belated plea of the Respondent in his statement u/s 342 Code of Criminal Procedure. There is also no suggestion that he put pressure on the Respondent to submit a report about the shortage as per Ext. 5, nor has it been put to any other witness for the prosecution. The circumstances also do not justify the alleged coercion in the presence of the Head Clerk, office peon and the sentry. p.w. 2 is the Chowkidar and a seizure witness. p.w. 3 is the peon of the Tahasil Office who states low the accused brought the cash from the Nizarat almirah. The circumstances also do not justify the alleged coercion in the presence of the Head Clerk, office peon and the sentry. p.w. 2 is the Chowkidar and a seizure witness. p.w. 3 is the peon of the Tahasil Office who states low the accused brought the cash from the Nizarat almirah. He also explains how the double lock chest is operated both by the Tahasildar and Nazir one key remaining with each and so without both it cannot be opened. He also states how in the absence of the Nazir the Respondent worked as Assistant Nazir. P.ws. 4 and 8 are the two friends of the Respondent who had come along with him to the office in the evening of 30-12-1967. They state that the Respondent went inside office room and came 2 to 3 minutes after and at that time there was as entry. P.w. 8 states further that he heard the sound of the opening of an almirah inside the office into which the Respondent had gone. p.w. 6 is the Treasury Guard in the Tahasil Office at Jharsuguda who was on duty from 6 P.M. to 8 P.M. on 30-12-1967. He deposed how the Respondent entered into Nizarat office room and he heard the sound of 'opening an almirah; the Respondent came out 15 to 20 minutes after; and when the Respondent closed, the Nizarat office room he checked the lock and found it in order. He further disclosed that the two friends and the Respondent then left and when his duty was over, to his reliever he showed how the lock of the Nizarat was in tact. p.w. 7 is the Head Clerk of the office and he stated as to how being sent for on 31-12-1967 he went to the office at 9.30 A. M. He supported the prosecution case in to regarding the Respondent remaining in charge of the Nazir and taking charge of the cash. p.w. 9 is the permanent Nazir and he stated how in the double lock there was only Rs. 2960/- and he had made over the key of the double lock that was with him to the Respondent and the other one was with the Tahasildar. He also stated how the key of the almirah remained with the Respondent. It was suggested to him in the cross-examination that he had been suspended. 2960/- and he had made over the key of the double lock that was with him to the Respondent and the other one was with the Tahasildar. He also stated how the key of the almirah remained with the Respondent. It was suggested to him in the cross-examination that he had been suspended. He admitted that, but added that he had not been relieved and he did not know the reason of his suspension. He deposed in May, 1970. Obviously no case was started against him regarding this defalcation. Thus that suspension is unconnected with the present case and affords no ground to disbelieve his evidence. He frankly admitted in cross-examination that he did not mention while making over charge of the cash that he made over also the keys for that is never the practice and had never been done before. I think there is much truth in it and it is just a wild suggestion without any basis since it makes no meaning in making over the cash without the key of the receptacle that contained it. 13. This oral evidence is quite in conformity with the documentary evidence referred to above. Nowhere it was suggested to the staff of the Tahasildar office who appeared as prosecution witnesses that the Respondent was not dealing with the cash; that he was not in charge of the Nizarat room; that he had never opened the Iron Almirah where this money had been kept; that the cash transactions were being done by others but he was merely maintaining the cash book and that on 31-12-1967 he was coerced to make a statement about the shortage of the cash in the Almirah. The oral evidence shows that there was a watchman of the office and further there were sent to placed who keep guard of the office in turn and they intermittently check the Nizarat office room to see if it is properly locked or not. If according to the defence the cash was in tact on the evening of 30-12-1967 it could not vanish by the next morning and that too only _the currency notes of higher denomination. Unless one gets into the Nizarat room which was locked and under guard one could not reach the iron almirah to tamper with it and meddle with the cash therein. Unless one gets into the Nizarat room which was locked and under guard one could not reach the iron almirah to tamper with it and meddle with the cash therein. Besides, if a stranger committed theft it is some what difficult to believe that he would only choose the currency notes of higher denomination leaving a substantial amount untouched and scattered to the tune of about Rs. 3,500/-. All these indicate that one who has access to the Nizarat room and the almirah that contained the cash could only have removed the cash that had fallen short and not anybody else. Thus from the documentary evidence coupled with the oral evidence there is no escape from the conclusion that it is the Respondent and Respondent alone who had been entrusted with the amount and it was he who was dealing with the cash during that short period and was bound to account for the same in which he has evidently failed. 14. The conduct of the Respondent is also inconsistent with the plea taken by him. As already indicated at the time of taking over charge of the Nizarat office from the Nazir, according to him, p.w. 9 had told something' which was fishy and in that background he should not have taken the responsibility upon himself. It would have put him on his guard and he should have kept himself aloof but as his subsequent conduct indicates, in right earnest he had taken charge of the cash as the Nazir-in-charge and transacted business on subsequent dates. Later, on 30-12-1967 just for collecting a greeting card he came to the office at an odd hour, entered the Nizarat room at a time when there was none else in the office. He had brought two friends who had no accessing to the Nizarat room and that is very likely intentional to disarm suspicion. Their evidence coupled with the evidence of the Sentry is clear that the Respondent alone entered the Nizarat room and handled the almirah. This gives a direct lie to the defence version that he was not in charge of the key of the almirah that contained cash. Any theft in course of the night can be safely ruled out since the Respondent admitted that the previous evening on 30-12-1967 the money was in tact. This gives a direct lie to the defence version that he was not in charge of the key of the almirah that contained cash. Any theft in course of the night can be safely ruled out since the Respondent admitted that the previous evening on 30-12-1967 the money was in tact. It is more probable that his guilty conscience brought him earlier on 31-12-1967 to the office before the verification was to be conducted by p.w. 1 and as if it was an astounding discovery that he announced that the almirah was open and the currency notes of higher denomination had been whisked off which information he passed on to p.w. 1 through the office peon. The argument that no such heavy amount was seized from the house of the Respondent is utterly immaterial for consideration. The grounds on which the learned lower Court has held that at best the Respondent is entitled to the benefit of doubt are futile. In view of the unimpeachable documentary evidence of entrustment seeking corroboration from oral evidence is uncalled for. Official transactions of making over and taking over are not to be effected in presence of attesting witnesses to the same, so that adverse inference is to be drawn as appears to have been done by the learned lower Court. The over writings of the dates only for 26th to 31st December by the checking officer (p.w. 7) is quite understandable in that they were in fact made the same day i.e. 31-12-1967. Besides nothing was put to this witness (p.w. 7) to explain the reason of correcting the dates, for the above reason is obvious. Thus, on an assessment of the documentary, the oral and the attending circumstances I have no manner of doubt that it was the Respondent and the Respondent alone who having been entrusted with the money had misappropriated the alleged amount. His plea of innocence and that he is just a victim of conspiracy does not carry conviction. His only defence that he was the fool whose inexperience has been exploited by the knaves of the piece like p.ws. 1 and 9 is just the contrary a camouflage a mere pretence. His plea of innocence and that he is just a victim of conspiracy does not carry conviction. His only defence that he was the fool whose inexperience has been exploited by the knaves of the piece like p.ws. 1 and 9 is just the contrary a camouflage a mere pretence. In the result therefore I would hold, disagreeing with the learned lower Court, that the prosecution has established the entrustment of the cash with the Respondent and his failure to account for the same makes him liable u/s 409, Indian Penal Code. Accordingly setting aside the order of acquittal passed by the learned lower Court. I would convict the Respondent u/s 409, Indian Penal Code and sentence him to undergo R.I. for 3? years and pay a fine of Rs. 15,000/- (Fifteen thousand) or in default to undergo R.I. for a further period of three years. The appeal is allowed and the order of acquittal passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) is set aside. The Respondent is to surrender forthwith to under go the sentence. Final Result : Allowed