JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated, September 21, 1971, of the Special Judge for Rajasthan, Jaipur city, whereby the learned Judge convicted the appellant Jai Kishan under section 409 I.P.C., section 5(2) read with section 5(1)(c), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and section 477-A I.P.C. and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 500/- each, under the first two counts and rigorous imprisonment for six months under the third count. 2. The appellant was posted at the material time as Block Inspector (East) Northern Railway, Jodhpur. One of his duties as such Block inspector was to maintain stores and issue material therefrom to other railway employees for construction and repair of telecommunication. It is alleged that during the period December 24, 1964 to February 26, 1965, he committed criminal breach of truth in respect of 150Kg copper wire No.8. He issued three lots of copper wire weighing 50 Kg., 25 Kg. and 75 Kg. under three separate indents Ex P/5, dated, December 24, 1964, Ex. P/1, dated February 2, 1965 and Ex. P/4, dated February 26, 1965 respectively. The prosecution case is that he committed criminal breach of trust in respect of all these three lots and falsified the accounts to conceal the offence committed by him. 3. The prosecution produced oral and documentary evidence in support of its case that the copper wire which was drawn by the appellant from the store in his charge against the indents Ex. P/1,Ex P/4, and Ex. P/5, was not delivered by him to any other railway employee for use in the construction or repair work of telecommunications. By producing this evidence in respect of non-delivery of this copper wire to any other employee and its non-use in any railway construction or repair works, the prosecution suggested that the evidence led to the inescapable conclusion that the appellant hid dishonestly misappropriated or dishonestly used or disposed of the said copper wire-in violation of law. I may now briefly refer to the said evidence which has been discussed in detail by the learned trial Judge. 4. PW. Poosa Ram was posted as Line-man at Jodhpur in the year 1964. Poosa Ram gave evidence in respect of 50Kg. of copper wire covered by the indent Ex. I may now briefly refer to the said evidence which has been discussed in detail by the learned trial Judge. 4. PW. Poosa Ram was posted as Line-man at Jodhpur in the year 1964. Poosa Ram gave evidence in respect of 50Kg. of copper wire covered by the indent Ex. P/5 which according to the appellant, had been delivered be him to Poosa Ram for repair works. Admittedly Poosa Ram did not indent for any such wire. The indent Ex. P/5 does not bear tie signatures of the recipient of the material issued. Instead, it vaguely mentions that the material had been issued to the line man for taken work". Poosa Ram testified that the appellant had never issued any copper wire No. 8 to him during the period he remained posted as Line man under the appellant from April, 1964 to the end of December 1964. He explained that in fact copper wire No. 8 is used for new construction and not for repair work. He produced his movement diary Ex. D/3 and Ex. D/4 to show that he was not even sit Jodhpur on December 24,1964, when the indent Ex. P/5 was prepared by the appellant. 5. In trying to explain away the evidence of Poosa Ram as mentioned above, the appellant made a statement under section 342 Cr.P.C.(old) that in fact he had given 50Kg. of copper wire to Poosa Ram for earthing system in Dagana- Ratangarh section long before he actually prepared the indent Ex. P/5. The learned trial Judge rejected this explanation and rightly so it my opinion as false. It is difficult, if not impossible, to believe that stores will be issued to a subordinate employee without obtaining any written indent or demand slip from him and that the actual indent will be prepared after issue of the store. 6. PW. Dayal Das, who had been working as a Block Maintainer at the material time, deposed that he did not receive 25Kg. of copper wire No. 8 from the appellant on or about February 2, 1965. This lot of copper wire is covered by indent Ex.P/1 which was admittedly signed by the appellant himself Dayal Das explained that according to normal Practice his immediate superior namely PW R.N Bhatt, Asstt. of copper wire No. 8 from the appellant on or about February 2, 1965. This lot of copper wire is covered by indent Ex.P/1 which was admittedly signed by the appellant himself Dayal Das explained that according to normal Practice his immediate superior namely PW R.N Bhatt, Asstt. Block Inspector at Merta Road used to send the demand slips to the appellant and that it was always through Bhatt that supplies were received by him for repair work. R.N. Bhatt deposed that he did not indent for or received any copper wire No. 8 for repair work in February, 1965. 7. The prosecution has further produced evidence on record to Prove that when the appellant found that things were getting hot for him he tried to dispatch some copper wire to Dayal Das in May, 1965. The police seized 25Kg. of copper wire No. 12.13 vide Article/l at Degana. during the investigation Dayal Das deposed that he did not indent for any copper wire No. 12/13 and that the appellant had sue motu sent the aforementioned 25Kg. of copper wire No. 13 through his trally man Bhola. Obviously the appellant was trying to cover up the misappropriation by him of 25Kg of copper wire No 8 which he purported to have issued to Dayal Das on February 2, 1965. 8. PW. Jagdish Lal, Asstt. Block Inspector has corroborated the evidence of PW Dayal Das as mentioned above. 9. The fact that 25 Mg. of copper wire No. 12-13 remained unused upto its seizure by the police, during the investigation shows that the appellant had tried to dump it on Dayal Das in May 1965. PW. Bhola, the trolly-man, did not support the prosecution story. He was declared hostile. 10. The learned trial Judge has described PW. Dayal Das as a truthful witness for good and convincing reasons. I am satisfied that Dayal Das did not receive any copper wire No. 8 purporting to have been issued by the appellant vide indent Ex. P/1. 11. Turning now to the third lot of 75Kg. of copper wire covered by the indent Ex P/4 dated, February 26, 1965, the appellant would have us believe that he had issued this copper wire to PW. Bansilal for repair work of telecommunications. Bansilal stated as PW. P/1. 11. Turning now to the third lot of 75Kg. of copper wire covered by the indent Ex P/4 dated, February 26, 1965, the appellant would have us believe that he had issued this copper wire to PW. Bansilal for repair work of telecommunications. Bansilal stated as PW. 1 that at no time during the year 1965 had the accused ever issued any material to him without obtaining a receipt font him and that 75 Mg. of copper wire No. 8 was not issued to him on February 26, 1965. He placed on record his movement diary Ex. P/7 to show that from February 22, to February 27, 1965, he was at Deedwana and that therefore there was no question of the accused issuing any copper wire to him at Jodhpur, on February 26, 1965. In cross-examination of this witness, learned counsel for the appellant suggested to him that since he could net use the material, he had returned k 75 Mg. of copper wire in four instalments to the appellant, Bansilal denied this suggestion as false. Obviously, the story regarding the so called return of this material by Bansi Lal in four instalments is impossible to believe. If Bansi Lal bad really received the material and thereafter returned it as unused in four instalments, there was no earthly reason for him to deny these facts which after all would not have hurt him or his credit in any manner. It will be seen from the ledger, Ex. P/14, wherein the appellant made the entries regarding the so-called return of the material that he had initially written "1964" as the year of the re urn. He subsequently changed "1964" into "1965" which gives an indication of his guilty mind. Moreover, the daily transaction register, Ex. D. 1, does not contain any corresponding entry regarding the alleged return of the material by Bansilal. 12. It is thus proved beyond any doubt that the appellant had dishonestly and fraudulently misappropriated 150 Mg. of copper wire No. 8 cowered by the indents, Ex.P/1 and Ex P/4 and Ex P/5 He was therefore rightly found guilty of the charges framed against him under section 409 IPC and section 5(2) road with section 5(1) (c), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. 13. The learned trial Judge also found that the accused had prepared false indents Ex. P/1, Ex. P/4 and Ex. 13. The learned trial Judge also found that the accused had prepared false indents Ex. P/1, Ex. P/4 and Ex. P/5 in order to draw copper where from the stores for misappropriate and wrongful conversion. He had falsely entered in the indents that the copper wire was required for taken work in Jodhpur divisions whereas no such wire was needed for such purpose nor was it actually delivered to any line-man for such use. 14. PW Kader Nath, the clerk concerned, deposed that the appellant had given him Ex. P/1, Ex. P/4 and Ex. P/5 with instructions to make the necessary entry in the daily transaction register and that he had made entries in that register as desired by the appellant. The appellant admitted that entries were caused to be made by him in the daily transaction register on the basis of Ex. P/1,& Ex. P/4 and Ex. P/5 and that he bad initialled these entries. It has already been held that the false entries regarding the so-called return of material by Bansilal in the ledger Ex. P/1 are not reflected in the daily transaction register Ex. D. 1. All this would prove that the appellant wilfully and with instant to defraud the railway made false indents and caused false entries to be made in the lodger and daily transaction register. He was therefore rightly found guilty under section 477-A IPC. 15. For all these reasons, I find that the appellant was rightly convicted and sentenced under section 409 IPC., section 5(2) read with section 5 (1)(c), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and 477-A IPC, The sentences awarded under various counts are by no means excessive. The trial court acted with care and circumspection in ordering that all the three sentences will run concurrently. I would accordingly affirm the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant by the trial court. The appeal is dismissed. The appellant is on bail. He shall be arrested and committed to prison to serve out the sentence awarded to him. A copy of this order may be sent to the Special Judge for Rajasthan, Jaipur City, Jaipur, for compliance .Appeal dismissed. *******