Short Note : 1. The material facts, in short are that Karmatiabai (PW. 1) had received three thousand and some odd rupees from Chharcbha Colliery as gratuity-cum-death benefit on account of the death of her late husband who was an employee in that Colliery. The accused-applicant Haricharan in the presence of Pawansai (PW.2), the brother-in-law of Karmatiabai and Hiran (PW-3) in her house in village Maghora on 29-5-70 in the morning advised Karmatiabai (PW.1) to deposit that amount in the Post Office Savings Bank and not keep it with her lest it might be lost. He volunteered himself to deposit the amount in her name in the Post Office. Relying upon the representation by the accused who was also a panch, Karmatiabal (PW 1) gave Rs.3,000 to him and the accused in the company of Pawansai (PW. 2) went to the Post Office at Baikunthpur, where be instead of depositing the amount in the same of Karmatiabai (PW.1) deposited it in his own name. Later on, when Karmatiabai (PW.1) on a number of occasions demanded the Post Office Savings Bank Pass Book the accused without disclosing that the amount had been deposited in his own name kept on falsely reassuring her that the Pass Book would be returned to her. Ultimately, Karmatiabai smelling the rat sent a report dated 11-12-70. It came to be recorded as first-information-report on 15-1-71. 2. The learned Magistrate though finding him not guilty of cheating, namely, the offence punishable under section 420 IPC, acquitted him of that charge, he finding him guilty of offence punishable under section 406 IPC, sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for six months with Rs.2,000 fine, failing the payment of which he was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for four months and in the event of payment of fine the entire amount was to be paid as compensation to Karmatiabai (PW.1). His appeal to the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur partly succeeded. He though upheld the conviction of the applicant for offence punishable under section 406 IPC, directed him to pay Rs. 3500 fine. failing the payment of which be is to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and in the event of payment of fine Rs.3,000 have to be paid to karmatiabai (PW.1) as compensation. Held: The contention for the applicant that the money had not been entrusted to him, but to Pawansai (PW.2) does not hold water. 3500 fine. failing the payment of which be is to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and in the event of payment of fine Rs.3,000 have to be paid to karmatiabai (PW.1) as compensation. Held: The contention for the applicant that the money had not been entrusted to him, but to Pawansai (PW.2) does not hold water. It is no doubt true that Pawansai (PW.2) had for sometime carried the amount from the house of Karmatiabai (PW.11 to the Post Office at Baikunthpur where he had given that money to the accused applicant but from that it does not follow that the money had been entrusted to Pawansai (PW.2). Pawansai (PW 2) had merely acted as an innocent carrier of the amount on behalf of the accused-applicant upto the Post Office. Mohan (PW. 4) corroborating Karmatiabai (PW. 1) establishes that the Pass Book was demanded from the applicant but the applicant had failed to hand-over any Pass Book to Karmatiabai (PW.1)., Trivenisingh (PW.6) establishes that the Pass Book had been seized from the accused-applicant evidencing which the memorandum (Ex. P-3) came to be recorded. Rambharose (PW.7) establishes that the register maintained at the Post Office concerning this transaction had been seized. All this evidence goes conclusively to establish that the applicant had committed criminal breach of trust in having dealt with the money entrusted to him by Karmatiabai (PW.1) in a manner different from one indicated by Karmatiabai. Revision dismissed.