Order The revision petitioner has been convicted of an offence punishable under section 409, Indian Penal Code, and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil. In appeal, the Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence of imprisonment to four months’ rigorous imprisonment. 2. The facts leading to the conviction of the revision petitioner are: The revision petitioner was the President of the Kanyakumari Co-operative Fish Marketing Union Limited which purchases dry fish from its members and sells the same to dealers and commission agents. The second accused was the Secretary, the third accused was the clerk and the fourth accused was the go down keeper of the Union. (Accused 2 to 4 were acquitted). The revision petitioner sent a letter, Exhibit P-1 to the Secretary who was the second accused stating that the Day Book is incomplete and entries have not been made up to 30th November, 1975. He marked a copy of it to P.W. 1, Assistant Director of Fisheries., P.W. 1 ordered an enquiry under section 65 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act and deputed P.W. 3, Co-operative Sub-Registrar (Fisheries), Nagercoil, to conduct an enquiry and submit a report. The revision petitioner did not appear for the enquiry as also the third accused, the clerk attached to the Union. P.W. 3 on verification of the stock register found that stock was shown as “Nil” whereas there should have been a stock of 5,305 kilograms of dry fish worth about Rs. 11,000. He sent a report under Exhibits P-4 and P.W. 1 then wrote to the Director of Fisheries who laid a complaint under Exhibit P-5 to the Superintendent of Police, Commercial Crime Investigation Wing, Madras 4. P.W. 5, Sub-Inspector of Police, Commercial Crime Investigation Wing, Nagercoil, registered a case in Crime No. 2533 of 1976 of Kottar Police Station under sections 408, 409, 467, 471 and 477-A, Indian Penal Code. P.W. 4 took up investigation and as he was transferred P.W. 5 took up further investigation, and laid the charge-sheet after completing the investigation. 3. A charge under section 409 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code, was framed against the first accused and under section 408, read with section 34 against the other accused who were ultimately acquitted. The defence was that 2,625 kgs. 3. A charge under section 409 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code, was framed against the first accused and under section 408, read with section 34 against the other accused who were ultimately acquitted. The defence was that 2,625 kgs. of dry fish was sold to Nataraja Nadar, a commission agent at Kovilpatti, and that the balance of 2,680 kgs. was sold or Rs. 250 as waste, in pursuance of a resolution and that he has not committed any misappropriation and therefore, not guilty. The trial Court no doubt finds that there has been a sale of 2,625 kgs. of dry fish to Nataraja Nadar, but the sale proceeds were not accounted for then and there, though portion of it was given credit to on 2nd April, 1976, and the balance on 31st May, 1976. In regard to the balance of 2,680 kgs. of dry fish, the trial Court pointed out that it was sold for a paltry sum of Rs. 250 and therefore, the revision petitioner has committed misappropriation of the sale proceeds. The Sessions Judge confirmed the findings of the trial Court. The revision petitioner challenges the conviction and the sentence. 4. Mr. Alagiriswami, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously contended that valuable evidence has been overlooked by the trial Court and therefore, this Court should interfere in revision. He invited my attention to Exhibit D-5 and to Exhibit D-9 and to the entries in Exhibit D-3 which will show that 2,680 kgs. of dry fish have been sold for Rs. 250. In regard to disposal of 2,685 kgs. of dry fish, there is clear evidence of D.W. 1, the accountant of Nataraja Nadar, who speaks to the fact that his principal, Nataraja Nadar, sent two cheques one for Rs. 2,000 and the other for Rs. 1,000 to the union. The entries dated 26th November, 1975 and 9th December, 1975 in Exhibit D-4, the Day Book maintained by the Secretary of the Union, the (second accused), show that these amounts were received by the Union. The Sessions Judge did not place reliance on the entry at page 78 of Exhibit D-4 as in his view the entry does not relate to Natarja Nadar, but to one Ramayya Nadar. The Sessions Judge did not place reliance on the entry at page 78 of Exhibit D-4 as in his view the entry does not relate to Natarja Nadar, but to one Ramayya Nadar. The mistake committed by the Sessions Judge is that he has taken the entry, dated 8th December, 1975, into account and not the entry, dated 9th December, 1975, which relates to Nataraja Nadat. The entry at page 24 of Exhibit D-1 shows that a sum of Rs. 5,263.50 was received towards the value of 2,625 kgs. of dry fish. The Sessions Judge comes to the conclusion that the entry at page 24 of Exhibit D-1 must have been got up “to bolster up his case.” There is no reason to hold so, because the revision petitioner has only to account for the stock of 5,305 kgs. of dry fish and has accounted for 2,625 kgs. of dry fish. The Courts below were in the realm of speculation when they say that these amounts have been received earlier and credited later. There is no evidence to show that the amounts were received earlier and credited later. 5. In regard to the disposal of 2,680 kgs. of dry fish the case of the accused is that it was disposed of as waste dry fish for Rs. 250 in pursuance of a resolution passed by the general body of the Kanyakumari Co-operative Fish Marketing Union. The Courts below have not adverted to this important document, Exhibit D-5. Exhibit D-5 shows that a resolution was passed by the general body stating that the waste dry fish which consists of heads and dusts of dry fish should be sold for not less than Rs. 200. It is seen from the minutes book, Exhibit D-5, that the purchase committee sought the direction of the general body as early as on 27th February, 1976 for the disposal of 2,680 kgs. of waste fish. The case of the defence is that this 2,680 kgs. of dry fish was sold ultimately for Rs. 250 to one Hanifa. This is evidenced by Exhibit D-9, the counterfoil of the receipt. It is only when the revision petitioner fails to give an account as to what he did with the stock that criminal liability can be fastened upon the revision petitioner. of dry fish was sold ultimately for Rs. 250 to one Hanifa. This is evidenced by Exhibit D-9, the counterfoil of the receipt. It is only when the revision petitioner fails to give an account as to what he did with the stock that criminal liability can be fastened upon the revision petitioner. In J.M. Desai v. State of Bombay1 the Supreme Court observed: “The principal ingredient of the offence being dishonest misappropriation or conversion which may not ordinary 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.” 6. In this case, the revision petition has accounted for the stock of 5,305 kgs. of dry fish. It may be that the lower Court finds that the sale proceeds of dry waste fish is rather too low. But then the revision petitioner is armed with the resolution, Exhibit D-5 of the members of the General Body of Kanyakumari Co-operative Fish Marketing Union. It may be that the revision petitioner is liable, in other appropriate proceedings for his negligence or malpractice of any kind if he sells the stock for a low price, but when he accounts for the disposal of the alleged deficit stock, he will not be liable for punishment under section 409, Indian Penal Code. In that view, the revision is allowed, the conviction and the sentence are set aside and the revision petitioner is acquitted. R.S.R. ----- Revision allowed.