JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal arises out of the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalore, dated 29-9-72 by which he convicted and sentenced appellant Bhagwat Singh as follows : (1.) under section 409 IPC to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 500 in default whereof, to further simple imprisonment for three months ; (2) under sections 467 and 468 IPC on each count to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 300, in default whereof to further simple imprisonment for two months ; (3) under section 477 A IPC to rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2. The sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently. 3. I have heard arguments and perused the record. 4. The brief facts are that the accused was posted as a supervisor, incharge of the Sheep and Wool Extension Centre Bhinmal. in the relevant period. His duty was to purchase wool on behalf of the Sheep and Wool Department and for that purpose, he used to advance money to sheep breeders at the rate of rupee one per sheep. The remaining amount of price was to be paid when the wool was delivered. The department allotted him a sum of Rs. 67,000 from 10-1-67 to 14-4-67. The wool was stored at the godown in Bhinmal of which the accused was incharge. Upon audit, it was found that the wool in the store with him was short by 1989.890 Kgs. This shortage was valued at Rs. 10,943 46 paisa. It was also found that the accused had forged fictitious receipts in respect of the advance and purchase money to several sheep breeders. The accused was charged that he was guilty under section 409 IPC in respect of the aforesaid shortage of wool in the store. He was further charged under sections 467, 468 and 477A IPC for forging the record (relating to receipts and entries of advance of money and payment of purchase price to the twenty eight persons listed in the charge-sheet and the stock register, while no persons of those names and descriptions existed). 5. The accused contended that the shortage in the wool was due to insects and rates having destroyed the wool and due to drying of the moisture. 5. The accused contended that the shortage in the wool was due to insects and rates having destroyed the wool and due to drying of the moisture. The learned trial judge observed that some shortage is likely to have occasioned due to drying but the burden of proving the actual reduction was on the accused, because it is not possible to believe that such a huge quantity of 1898,880 Kgs could be reduced on account of the aforesaid factors. As regards the other charges, the learned trial judge held that the accused forged the receipts, made false entries in the wool purchase register and advance booking register, as well as in the cash-books and he shall be deemed to have misappropriated a sum of Rs. 3,707 on this account and, therefore, he convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid. 6. Genesh Narayan Saxena PW 1 has deposed that he had gone to audit the store and accounts of the Bhinmal Wool Purchase Centre. He also took with him Shri O.P. Kalia, District Sheep and Wool Officer. He prepared the report Ex. P. 1. According to him the shortage in the stock was 1989.880 Kgs., which was of the value of Rs. 10,943,46. 7. Shri Om Prakash Kalia PW 8 has deposed that Rs. 57,000 were given to the accused for purchase of wool. The money, which was given as advance to the sheep breeders was given on receipts in a prescribed form. It used to be signed by the person receiving the amount and attested by the person paying the amount in the presence of two witnesses. The register showed the deficit in the stock upon physical verification. Out of Rs. 57,000 he returned Rs. 15,000, Rs. 22,000 were shown to have been paid by the accused to the sheep breeders, of the remaining Rs. 20,000 the accused gave no account or explanation. 8. In his statement under section 342 Cr. P. C. the accused admitted that the physical verification and statement Ex. P2 was signed by him as the verification took place in his presence. He has also admitted to have received Rs. 57,000, but he denied that he misappropriated any amount and stated that the receipts 123 in number Ex. P4A to Ex. PI31 were not forged but were genuine. 9. P2 was signed by him as the verification took place in his presence. He has also admitted to have received Rs. 57,000, but he denied that he misappropriated any amount and stated that the receipts 123 in number Ex. P4A to Ex. PI31 were not forged but were genuine. 9. The prosecution was able to prove the following booking and final payment receipts as fictitious : Names Rs. P. Wool in Kgs (1) Ex. P/40 and Ex. P250 Heera 19500 30.000 (2) Ex. P114 and Ex. P223 Peera 222-75 40.500 (3) Ex. P115 and Ex. P229 Jawana 115-50 21.000 (4) Ex. P116 and Ex. P230 Sonia 17200 34.400 (5) Ex. P117 and Ex. P231 Hema 243 00 40.500 (6) Ex. P118 and Ex. P232 Vena 200-00 38.000 (7) Ex. P119 and Ex. P233 Dhuka 132-00 24.000 (8) Ex. P120 and Ex. P234 Achala 16500 33.000 (9) Ex. P109 and Ex. P223 Kami 181-50 33.000 (10) Ex. P110 and Ex. P224 Natha 17500 35.000 (11) Ex. P111 and Ex. P225 Jetha 228-25 41.000 (12) Ex. P112 and Ex. P226 Roopa 30800 56.000 (13) Ex. P113 and Ex. P227 Baju 328-00 38.000 (14) Ex. P121 and Ex. P235 Surta 247-30 45.000 (15) Ex. P122 and Ex. P236 Sarupa 176-00 32.000 (16) Ex. P123 and Ex. P237 Dharma 253-00 46.000 (17) Ex, P124 and Ex. P238 Darga 217-25 39.500 (18) Ex. P125 and Ex. P239 Hoti 239-23 43.500 Total 3,708,00 670.900 10. The total amount comes to Rs. 3,708 00 but the learned lower court has fixed this amount at Rs 3,707 only. The wool purchase register shows that the wool purchased as aforesaid had also been entered in the stock. If these receipts are held as were held to be fictitious, then, the shortage of the aforesaid quantity of wool has to be defected from the total shortage detected. 11. Therefore, the accused could be held answerable (1) for Rs. 3,707 which were advanced to the sheep breeders who were not genuine persons ; (2) for the shortage in the wool. 12. A look at Ex. P3 wool purchase register will show that Rs. 22,000 were advanced for wool booking to a total number of 132 sheep breeders, out of which 129 persons have delivered the wool (139 numbers have been shown in Ex. P3, but 10 have been deleted). Rs. 12. A look at Ex. P3 wool purchase register will show that Rs. 22,000 were advanced for wool booking to a total number of 132 sheep breeders, out of which 129 persons have delivered the wool (139 numbers have been shown in Ex. P3, but 10 have been deleted). Rs. 19,800 were paid at the time of the delivery of the wool. Thus, the total rupees spent by the accused were Rs. 41,800, and Rs. 200 remained to be explained. There are 3 defaulters with the amount of Rs. 450. It is not proved by the prosecution that these Rs. 450 were advanced to fictitious persons. Rs. 3,707 are proved to have been advanced to fictitious persons. Thus, the accused is in fact guilty of embezzlement of an amount of Rs. 3,707 +Rs. 200 =3,907. The finding of the learned trial Judge that out of the amount of Rs. 57,000 the accused has defalcated this amount, is therefore, a correct finding. 13. The accused is further responsible for the shortage. Some shortage can be due to drying but it is not possible to hold that rates and insects were responsible for loss of a large quantity. The accused has said nothing of the kind in his statement that this shortage was due to destruction by insects. He has only stated towards the end of his statement that the weight of the wool is reduced on account of the moisture. He also produced three witnesses in this respect. Magaram (DW 1) has said that the wool is eaten away by the rates and squirrels. Kishanlal DW 2 said that before the wool is sheared, the sheeps are given a wash and, therefore, the wool is reduced by 25 percent. According to Dr. Kalia two percent weight is reduced by drying up of the wool, for the shortage in the following manners : (1) Total wool shown as purchased - 7266.380 Kgs (2) Wool not purchased - 670.900Kgs (3) Balance in stock - 5276.500Kgs (4) Total shortage - 1318.980Kgs 14. The explanation of the accused now is that this shortage was occasioned on account of drying of the moisture and destruction by insects, rates etc. The explanation of the accused now is that this shortage was occasioned on account of drying of the moisture and destruction by insects, rates etc. It cannot be believed because such a large quantity firstly cannot be reduced in the aforesaid manner unless the accused was criminally neglecting the duties which he had to discharge as a person incharge of the purchase and store centre. Even if an allowance to the tune of 5 per cent is made for loss by rates etc. and by shrinkage, then too, the accused must explain a shortage of at least of 1000 Kgs of wool, which he has not been able to prove. 15. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the charge No. 1 which was read over to the accused was that he misappropriated the amount of wool that was found short, while the learned trial Judge has convicted him of an embezzlement of Rs. 3,707. This argument is founded upon the observation of the learned trial judge that no wool which he had actually shown in the wool register was purchased by him for the disputed amount and therefore, he will be deemed to have dishonestly misappropriated a sum of Rs. 3.707 to his own us-. 16. As I have explained just now, what the prosecution has proved is that out of the total shortage 1989,880 Kgs, the accused did not purchase wool of Rs. 3,707 and could not satisfactorily explain the remaining shortage. Though I agree that there is no charge relating to the embezzlement of the cash amount and certainly to that extent the appellant cannot be convicted under section 409 but he has been rightly convicted under section 409 IPC for the remaining shortage of wool. It is also incorrect to urge that the learned trial judge has introduced a new case and has thus, caused prejudice to the accused. The case with which the prosecution began has been that there was misappropriation of the wool. The learned trial Judge found that there was misappropriation of money also. An absence of a satisfactory explanation of the shortage in the wool led to an inference that the wool was misappropriated by the accused person. 17. The case with which the prosecution began has been that there was misappropriation of the wool. The learned trial Judge found that there was misappropriation of money also. An absence of a satisfactory explanation of the shortage in the wool led to an inference that the wool was misappropriated by the accused person. 17. The learned Public Prosecutor relies in this connection upon Jai Krishna Manohardas Dessai v. State of Bombay, AIR 1960 SC 889 wherein it has been Lald down that to establish a charge of criminal breach of trust, the prosecution is not obliged to prove the precise mode of conversion, misappropriation or misapplication by the accused, of the property entrusted to him or over which he had dominion. The principal ingredient of the offence being dishonest misappropriation or conversion which may ordinarily be a matter of direct proof, an entrustment of property and failure, in breach of an obligation, to account for the property entrusted, if proved, may in the light of other circumstance justifiably lead to an inference of dishonest misappropriation or conversion. Where the accused is unable to account or renders an explanation for his failure to account which is untrue, an inference of misappropriation of dishonest intent may readily be made. In Jaggo v. the State, 1952 RLW 194 it was held that once entrustment is proved the burden is shifted on the accused to show as to what he did with the money property with which he was entrusted. This burden has not been discharged by the accused. 18. As respects the second charge, the learned counsel for the accused submitted that the finding of the learned trial judge that the persons in whose names certain receipts, exist, were fictitious, has not been proved by the evidence on record. The prosecution has led a very weak type of evidence by producing persons of the villages to which the alleged fictitious suppliers belonged. The best evidence could have been of some panch or some electoral register but the prosecution contended itself by producing persons whose knowledge about all the persons residing in their villages cannot be believed ipse dixit. Even the learned trial Judge had to disbelieve one of such witnesses, namely, Jetha PW2. The best evidence could have been of some panch or some electoral register but the prosecution contended itself by producing persons whose knowledge about all the persons residing in their villages cannot be believed ipse dixit. Even the learned trial Judge had to disbelieve one of such witnesses, namely, Jetha PW2. The evidence of all the witnesses in this respect is not even admissible because their evidence is neither direct nor positive and is rather an evidence of negative type and should have been discarded. I have considered over the objection and it appears to me that it has no force. The villages to which the persons belong in those names the receipts appear are not from big villages and there is nothing wrong in accepting the knowledge of the witnesses with regard to the members that live in the small hamlets. Absence of corroboration by an electoral register will provide with no argument for rejecting the direct testimony of the villagers. The learned trial Judge disbelieved the evidence of Jetha because he was shaken in cross-examination. Amra Rewari PW3. Thana PW4, Hema PW5, and Sawa PW6 were believed because they knew all the villagers resident in their respective villages who were not many. I therefore uphold the finding of the lower court that the accused paid money to fictitious persons. 19. The learned counsel then directed his attack on the illegality of the conviction under sections 467, 468 and 477A 1FC. As regards the charge regarding forgery, that is falling under sections 467 and 468 IPC. I agree that there is no direct evidence that the accused forged the signatures on the receipts of the aforesaid 18 persons Heera and others. But once it is proved that these persons did not exist then the only conclusion drawn is that the signatures do not purport to be of the persons in whose names they stand and such a case is clearly covered by section 467 IPC and also covered by section 468 IPC because it was done for cheating the government. But once it is proved that these persons did not exist then the only conclusion drawn is that the signatures do not purport to be of the persons in whose names they stand and such a case is clearly covered by section 467 IPC and also covered by section 468 IPC because it was done for cheating the government. Again when it is proved that the money was advanced and the wool was also entered in the registered in the name of fictitious persons, then the charge under section 477A IPC stands proved, because the accused wilfully and with intent to defraud, falsified the record and the accounts belonging to his employer, namely, the State Government and has made false entries in Government record. 20. The learned counsel cited Rex v. Daya Shanker Jaitly, AIR 1950 Allahabad 167 and submitted that in a charge under section 477A it is necessary that every item should be specified and by lumping together various offences covering more than one year the accused was held to have been prejudiced. But upon a scrutiny of this ruling, it appears that if the offences are of criminal breach of trust and dishonest misappropriation of money, it is permissible to specify the gross sum in respect of which the offence is alleged to have been committed and the dates within which the offence is alleged to have been committed without specifying the particular items or exact dates. The omission of the details of particular items in respect of which the offence of falsification was alleged to have been committed, was held as curable under section 225 Cr. P.C. unless the accused was in fact misled by the error or omission and the error and omission occasioned a failure of justice. The charge framed by the learned lower court did also mention the names of 28 persons in respect of whom the offences under sections 467, 468 and 477A were committed. The period covered also did not exceed one year. I do not find therefore, that any prejudice in any way has been caused to the accused by the omission of more details in the charge. 21. Another case relied upon was Emperor v. Manant K. Mehta, AIR 1926 Bombay 110 . The period covered also did not exceed one year. I do not find therefore, that any prejudice in any way has been caused to the accused by the omission of more details in the charge. 21. Another case relied upon was Emperor v. Manant K. Mehta, AIR 1926 Bombay 110 . In this case, trial of a person on a charge which alleged three distinct acts of criminal breach of trust and three distinct acts of falsification of accounts was held illegal as the case was not covered by section 234 Cr. P.C. as the offences of criminal breach of trust and of falsification of accounts are not offences of the same kind. It also was not covered under section 235 Cr- P.C. because there were three defalcations committed on different occasions and the false entries connected with one defalcation cannot be said to form part of the same transaction with the other defalcations and falsifications. I do not think that this case has any relevance because the case before me is covered by section 235 of the Cr. P C., because the series of acts were so connected together as to form the same transaction. 22. In Emperor v. Ram Autar Lal, AIR 1942 Patna 401 it was held that each defalcation was a separate offence and a series of charges under section 477A IPC are not permitted to be lumped up together as section 222(2) refers only to the offence of criminal breach of trust or dishonest misappropriation of money and not to falsification of accounts. But it will be noticed here in this case that in the charge relating to section 477A though the amount of money has not been mentioned but the names of all the persons in respect of whom false entries have been made have been mentioned. I therefore, do not think that the trial is vitiated because each item was not mentioned in the charge-sheet- 23. The result of the foregoing discussion is that the charges under sections 409 167, 468 and 477A IPC have been brought home to the accused beyond any manner of reasonable doubt. There is no illegality either in the charges or the findings of the learned trial judge in this respect. The appellant has been rightly convicted under these sections. But the sentences that have been awarded to him on these counts call for reduction. There is no illegality either in the charges or the findings of the learned trial judge in this respect. The appellant has been rightly convicted under these sections. But the sentences that have been awarded to him on these counts call for reduction. 1 am inclined to think that a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months on each count shall amply meet the ends of justice. 24. Consequently, I partly accept this appeal, and direct that (1) the convictions of the appellant are maintained ; (2) on each count, his sentence of imprisonment is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for six months only but the fines and sentences in default are maintained ; (3) the appellant is on bail and shall surrender to serve the sentence. If he fails, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned shall have him arrested and committed to prison for the purpose subject to the benefit of section 428 Cr. P.C. *******