JUDGMENT 1. - This is a criminal revision by the accused against his conviction under section 409 IPC and a sentence of three months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine one months further rigorous imprisonment. 2. The prosecution case in brief was that the accused petitioner working as Superintendent, Students Hostel in Social Welfare Department, Tonk, was also working as Cashier in the department. On 27th April, 1969, the Public Works Department, Tonk, informed the Social Welfare Department that in case they wanted ceiling fans, they should deposit an amount of Rs. 529/- as the price of the Ceiling Fans. The accused while working as a cashier in the Social Welfare Department prepared a fully vouched contingent bill Ex.PA and obtained the amount of Rs. 529/- on 12th June, 1969, an entry in the cashbook was made vide Ex 2B. On 8th June 1969, the accused obtained this amount vide Ex.P2A for depositing in the Public Works Department. The prosecution case is that the accused did not deposit the aforesaid amount and embezzled it. 3. At the time of audit on 20th August 1970, the accused submitted an application Ex.PC praying that he had received Rs. 529/- for depositing, but he could not deposit the same as the ceiling fans were not available in the Public Works Department and as such he was now returning the aforesaid amount. On this application made by the accused, the amount was ordered to be deposited vide entries in the Cashbook. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tonk, framed charges under sections 409, 465 and 477A against the accused. 4. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses in support of their case and filed a number of documentary evidence. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, by his judgment dated 28th February, 1977, found the accused guilds for offence under section 409 IPC and sentenced him in the manner indicated above. It is important to mention here that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate recorded no finding for offences under sections 465 and 477A On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Tonk, also by his judgment dated 16ih January, 1981, upheld the judgment given by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Aggrieved against the aforesaid two orders the accused has filed the present revision in this Court. 5. It is contended by Mr. 5. It is contended by Mr. Dave, learned counsel for the petitioner, that as no finding was given by the two courts below for holding the accused guilty under sections 465 and 477A IPC, it would be deemed that he has been acquitted of the aforesaid charges and as he has been acquitted for these charges the petitioner cannot be held guilty for offence under section 409 IPC also. It is further contended that the charge under sections 465/477A' were that the accused petitioner committed forgery by making false entry in the cashbook dated 18th June, 1969 of the Social Welfare Department and if be is acquitted of this charge then he cannot be punished for charge under section 409 IPC. It is also contended that return of money by the accused on 20th August, 1977 is not proved and it is also not established on record that the accused was working as an Accountant or as a cashier in the department at the relevant period. 6. As regards the contentions of the learned counsel, I am in agreement, that the accused should be deemed to have been acquitted for charges under section 465 and 477A IPC as no finding was recorded by the lower Courts. However I do not accept the contention of the learned counsel that the accused cannot be held guilty for offence under Section 409 IPC in the case where he has been acquitted under Sections 165 and 477A IPC. The charges which reproduce as under are entirely different and if the charge No. 1 relating to an offence under Section 409 IPC is proved by the evidence on record then he can be held guilty for offence under Section 409 IPC: " 1- fnukad 12&6&1969 ls fnukad 18&6&69 rd lekt dY;k.k foHkkx esa dsf'k;j ds in ioj Fks rc vki us 529@& :i;s izkIr fd;k vkSj jde dk voS/k vigj.k fd;k o 409 vkbZ ih lh dk vijk/kk fd;kA 2- fnuad 18&6&69 dks lekt dY;k.k foHkkx Vksad dh dS'kcqd esa 529@& :i;s ih0MCyq Mh Vksad esa ia[ks gsrq tek djkus dk >wBk banzkt fd;k vkSj bl izdkj 465@447&, vkbZ ih lh dk vijk/kk fd;kA " 7. The learned Sessions Judge in this regard has placed reliance on the statements of Laxman Lal PW 1, Shyam Saran PW 6, and Laxman Goswami PW 10 from which it was proved that the accused was working as cashier during the relevant period. The learned Sessions Judge has observed that there was no reason to disbelieve the statements of Laxman Goswami. It may be observed that Laxman Goswami PW 10 joined the department in January, 1969 and remained District Social Welfare Officer at Tonk for 4 5 months. Mr. Dave, learned counsel for the accused petitioner was unable to show how the aforesaid finding of the learned Sessions Judge was in any manner perverse or illegal. The learned Sessions Judge also placed reliance on the statement of Shyam Saran PW 6, who had taken charge of cash from the accused on 2nd July, 1969. 8. The next point taken into consideration by the learned Sessions Judge was whether the accused was entrusted the amount. In this regard he placed reliance on the statement of Laxman Goswami PW 10, who stated that Rs. 529/- were given to the accused for the purchase of fans. It is further proved from the statement of PW 5 Ram Gopal a cashier in the Public Works Department and Store-keeper Juber Ali PW 7 that the amount was not deposited in the the Public Works Department. It is also proved on record that a notice Ex.PF dated 20th August, 1970, was given to the accused and the accused gave a reply vide Ex.PG. In this Ex.PG the accused had mentioned that he had gone several times in Public Works Department but on account of non-availability of the fans in the store of the Public Works Department, the cashier did not receive the amount. On this account he was now returning back the amount for being deposited. On this the District Probation and Social Welfare Officer passed an order for depositing the amount. Ex.PF and PG have been proved by Shri Indra Raj Singh PW 3 District Probation-cum-Social Welfare Officer from 26th February, 1970 to 22nd October, 1970. He has clearly stated that the accused worked under him for 12 months as such he identified his handwriting. On this the District Probation and Social Welfare Officer passed an order for depositing the amount. Ex.PF and PG have been proved by Shri Indra Raj Singh PW 3 District Probation-cum-Social Welfare Officer from 26th February, 1970 to 22nd October, 1970. He has clearly stated that the accused worked under him for 12 months as such he identified his handwriting. Thus, there is a clear finding of the learned Sessions Judge that the amount was entrusted to the accused and he retained the same up to 20th August, 1970 and then deposited it in the office. The learned Sessions Judge has arrived at the this finding on the basis of oral and documentary evidence and it has not been shown as to how the finding in this regard could in any manner be said to be perverse or illegal. 9. It has been observed in Jaikrishan Das, Man-Mohandas Desai and another v. State of Bombay, AIR 1960 SC 889 , that to establish a charge of criminal breach of trust that 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 has dominion The principle ingredient of the offence being dis-honest misappropriation or conversion which they not ordinarily be a matter of direct proof 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. Conviction of a person for the offence of criminal breach of trust may not, in all cases, be founded merely on his failure to account for the property entrusted to him, or over which he has dominion, even when a duty to account is imposed upon him, but where he 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. 10. In the present case it has been held proved by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate as well as by the learned Sessions Judge on the basis of oral and documentary evidence that the accused worked as Cashier from 12th June, 1969 to 18th June, 1969 when he received the amount of Rs. 529/- for purchase of fans from the Public Works Department. 529/- for purchase of fans from the Public Works Department. He showed the entry of payment to the Public Works Department on 18th June. 1969, but the amount was never received by the Public Works Department. When the embezzlement was detected by an audit party, the accused was given a notice Ex PF to explain regarding the amount on which he gave a false explanation that he could not deposit as the fans were not available in the store of the Public Works Department and thereafter deposited the amount on 20th August, 1970 vide Ex.PG. The above facts clearly prove beyond any manner of doubt that the accused was guilty of the offence punishable under section 409 IPC. In the facts and circumstances of the case the sentence of three months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- cannot be said to be an excessive. 11. Thus I see no force in this revision and the same is dismissed.Revision Dismissed. *******