JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant Mata Din Mishra has been convicted by the learned Special Judge of Rajasthan, Jaipur City vide his order dated March 30, 1972, under section 409 I. P. C. and section 5 (1) (c) read with section 5 (2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 500/-or in default of payment of fine further simple imprisonment for two months. He has also been convicted under section 477 - A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution which resulted in the conviction and sentence of the appellant as aforementioned may be briefly stated. The appellant was employed at the material time with the Western Railway as Travelling Ticket Examiner at Ajmer. It was his duty to detect passengers travelling without ticket, realise Excess Fare Ticket (E. F. T) charges from them and deposit the amount so realised with the booking clerk of the Station where he happened to be at the close of the same day against receipt obtained in token of such deposit. The accusation which is the basis of the present prosecution is that during the period from October 31, 1969 to February 28, 1970, he had realised a total amount of Rs. 3,161.25 P by way of E. F. T. charges and instead of depositing the entire amount, he had deposited a sum of Rs. 1635.25P during the aforesaid period, thus embezzling the remaining amount of Rs. 1525/-. Moreover, he wilfully falsified the account with intent to conceal the embezzlement committed by him and thus defraud the Railway. The falsification of account consisted of fake deposits shown and false monthly returns submitted by him. 3. During the trial the prosecution examined as many as 31 witnesses in support of its case and placed reliance on 464 documents and registers. 4. In his statement under section 342 Cr. P. C. (old) the accused admitted that he had been working at the material time as T. T. E. at Ajmer, that all the E. F. T. forms placed on record were written and signed by him and that he had thereby realised a sum of Rs. 3161.25 P by way of excess fare charges during the relevant period. P. C. (old) the accused admitted that he had been working at the material time as T. T. E. at Ajmer, that all the E. F. T. forms placed on record were written and signed by him and that he had thereby realised a sum of Rs. 3161.25 P by way of excess fare charges during the relevant period. He further admitted that the amount deposited by him during that period against the aforementioned E. F. T. forms did fall short of the amount collected by him. He pleaded that the short fall in the deposits made by him during that period occurred due to a bonafide mistake on his part and that he had no intention to defraud the Railway. 5. The learned trial Judge has discussed the oral and documentary evidence produced by the prosecution to prove that as Travelling Ticket Examiner at Ajmer from October 31, 1969 to February 28,1970 the accused had realised a sum of Rs. 3161. 25 P by way of E. F. T. charges and that during the said period he had deposited a total amount of Rs. 1635. 25 P this committing embezzlement of the amount of Rs. 1526. 6. The evidence has been discussed by the learned trial Judge month-wise. For example, he referred to the E. F. T. forms, monthly returns and summary of the returns for the months of November and December 1969, and January and February 1970 and concluded on the basis of oral evidence of witnesses who are familiar with the hand writing and signatures of the accused that these E. F. T. forms, returns and summaries of the returns are in the hand writing of the accused. It is established beyond any doubt from this evidence that the accused had collected a sum of Rs. 926/-, 1068.50, 782.05 and Rs. 363.70 during November, December 1969 and January and February 1970 respectively. The amount deposited by him during these months was Rs. 594.30 P., 395.65, 369.85 and Rs. 274.45 respectively. He had thus embezzled Rs. 330.70 in November 1969. Rs. 672.85 in December 1959, Rs. 412.20 P in January, 1970 and Rs. 100.25 P in February 1970. The total amount embezzled thus comes to Rs. 1525/-. 7. PWs. The amount deposited by him during these months was Rs. 594.30 P., 395.65, 369.85 and Rs. 274.45 respectively. He had thus embezzled Rs. 330.70 in November 1969. Rs. 672.85 in December 1959, Rs. 412.20 P in January, 1970 and Rs. 100.25 P in February 1970. The total amount embezzled thus comes to Rs. 1525/-. 7. PWs. Dhanraj and Ghisulal, the railway officials admitted that on the error slips being issued to the accused, he had promptly deposited the amount by which the amount already deposited by him fell short of the collections made during the relevant period. Almost all the railway officials, who have appeared as witnesses for prosecution in this case admitted that error slips are issued to all the Travelling Ticket Examiners, who deal with cash and that the Railway even provides the facility of depositing, by instalments, the amount of the short fall in the deposits. An argument is raised on that basis that in the circumstances the accused cannot be said to have committed any offence by his failure to deposit the full amount of realisations made by him month by month during the aforementioned period of four months. This argument is wholly devoid of force. The short fall in the deposits month by month was obviously intentional. The accused submitted false returns during these four months in an attempt to show as if he had already deposited the full amount realised by him month by month. For example, in the return Ex. P/143, Ex. P/147, Ex. P/151 and Ex P/155 for the month of November, 1969, he had also shown that he had already deposited the amount of Rs. 330.70 P which has since been discovered not to have been deposited. Similarly the returns for the month of December 1969 i. e. Ex. P/144, Ex. P/148, Ex. P/152 and Ex. P/156, would reveal that the accused had falsely shown therein to have made deposits of Rs. 101/- at Palanpur, Rs. 462.70P Bt Marwar Junction. Rs. 114.30P at Beawar. The returns Ex. P/145, Ex. P/149, Ex. P/153 and Ex. P/157 relating to the month of January 1970 would show that the accused had made false entries therein of the deposits of a total amount of Rs. 412.20 P. The false returns relating to the month of February 1970 are Ex. P/146, Ex. P/150, Ex. P/154 and Ex. P/158. The returns Ex. P/145, Ex. P/149, Ex. P/153 and Ex. P/157 relating to the month of January 1970 would show that the accused had made false entries therein of the deposits of a total amount of Rs. 412.20 P. The false returns relating to the month of February 1970 are Ex. P/146, Ex. P/150, Ex. P/154 and Ex. P/158. The amount falsely shown to have been deposited during this month comes to Rs. 109.25 P. 8. It can, therefore, be safely concluded that the short fall in the deposits against the collections made by the accused in the months of November, December 1969 January and February 1970, did not arise out of a bona fide mistake as pleaded by the accused. He deliberately with held some amount for himself each month and made false entries in the returns submitted by him that the said amount had been actually deposited. This clearly proves that he misappropriated those amounts totalling Rs. 1525/-during the aforesaid period and falsified the returns with intent to defraud the Railway. He is clearly guilty of the offence punishable under section 477-A and 409 I.P.C. He is also guilty under section 5(l)(c) read with section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. 9. Consequently, I affirm the convictions of the appellant under sections 309 and 477-A I.P.C. and section 5(l)(c) read with section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. 10. As for the sentence, I am inclined to take a lenient view. It has come in evidence that due to the illness of his wife the accused had been working under considerable mental strain during the relevant period. G. C. Chaturvedi, Divisional Chief Ticket Inspector, under whom the accused had been working at that time, has testified that the accused was under strain and stress in those days. Moreover, the accused did not lose any time in making the deposit of the amount in question immediately on receipt of error slip issued to him. The accused is also bound to lose his service and other benefits by reason of his conviction in this case. He has already undergone imprisonment for 22 days. For all these reasons, I am of opinion that the imprisonment already undergone by the accused will meet the ends of justice. 11. In conclusion, I dismiss this appeal in sofaras the order of conviction is concerned. He has already undergone imprisonment for 22 days. For all these reasons, I am of opinion that the imprisonment already undergone by the accused will meet the ends of justice. 11. In conclusion, I dismiss this appeal in sofaras the order of conviction is concerned. I would, however allow it in respect of the order of sentence and reduce the sentence of the appellant to the sentence of imprisonment already undergone by him.Appeal dismissed. *******