JUDGMENT : L. Rath, J. - The Petitioner's conviction u/s 409, I.P.C. and sentence of two years' R.I. and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to undergo R.I. for further period of three months having been confirmed in appeal, he has preferred this revision. 2. It is the case of the opposite party-complainant that the Petitioner was the Head Cashier of United Bank of India, Ranihat Branch at Cut tack on 3-9-1980 on which date at 3 p.m. he informed P.W. 2, Branch Manager of the Bank, of Rs. 61,000/- to be missing from the drawer inside the cash cage. Police was immediately informed by the Manager of the Bank who came there forthwith and on verification, cash amount of Rs. 61,000/- was found missing. The letter of the Manager to the Officer-in charge of Mangalabag Police Station was treated as the F.I.R. On verification during the same day, another sum of Rs. 100/- was also found short in the cash in the strong room. After investigation, the police submitted a final report that the Petitioner had misappropriated the amount but no case u/s 380, I.P.C. had been made out against him. The final report having been accepted, P.W. 2 filed a complaint against the Petitioner u/s 409, I.P.C. 3. It is the admitted case of the Petitioner that he was the Head Cashier of the bank concerned on the day of occurrence and further the shortage of Rs. 61,000/- from the drawer is also admitted. It is his case that the banking hours is upto 2 p.m. and thereafter till 3 p.m. there is a lunch break during which he had gone out to the canteen. Thereafter he went to a betel shop nearby and coming back found one of the rings of the door of the cash cage used for putting the lock on the door to have been declamped and the lock was hanging. Seeing it he immediately went and informed P.W. 2, the Manager of the Bank. It is his defence that somebody had committed theft of Rs. 61,000/- during his absence and as regards the shortage of Rs. 100/- from the strong room of the Bank, it was his explanation that the shortage was only the result of miscalculation. 4. Seeing it he immediately went and informed P.W. 2, the Manager of the Bank. It is his defence that somebody had committed theft of Rs. 61,000/- during his absence and as regards the shortage of Rs. 100/- from the strong room of the Bank, it was his explanation that the shortage was only the result of miscalculation. 4. Both the Courts below on analysis of the evidence came to hold that the fact of entrustment of the amount to the Petitioner was admitted and that there was no possibility of anybody else committing theft of the amount during his absence and hence found him guilty of the charge. In reaching such conclusion, the appellate Court has relied on the evidence of P.W. 3, Accountant of the Bank that inside the cash cage nobody besides the Petitioner sit and that the cage has Godrej locking arrangement from inside apart from the arrangement for putting lock from outside. The cash cage was locked from inside when the police came and would not open by pushing the same. It is the Petitioner who inserted his hand inside the pigeon-hole and turned the knob of the lock and opened the cage door. Inside the cage there were two drawers with locking arrangements in which the case used to be kept. While the upper drawer was closed and was opened by the key supplied by the Petitioner and was found containing currency notes of small denominations, the lower drawer containing currency notes of higher denominations was found open without being locked. The other circumstances taken into consideration by the appellate Court to sustain the conviction of the Petitioner were that (1) in Ext. The other circumstances taken into consideration by the appellate Court to sustain the conviction of the Petitioner were that (1) in Ext. 3, the written report submitted by the Petitioner, he stated that he left the cash cage after the banking hours on the date of occurrence after locking both the drawers, the cash box as also the door of the cash cage; (2) the fact that the main gate of the Bank remains closed from 2.00 to 3.00 p.m. and was closed on that day and no public are allowed inside the Bank during break hours and from the evidence it was found that the Petitioner had left the cash cage earlier than others and had returned also earlier than others; and (3) that P.W. 2 to 4 were co-workers of the Petitioner and there is nothing on record to show that they were inimically disposed against him. Though Mr. Mohapatra, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has extensively taken me through the evidence yet since I find that there is no infirmity in appreciation of the evidence by both the Courts below and I agree with the conclusions reached by them, it is not necessary to refer to the evidence in detail. 5. Apart from the circumstances relied upon by both the Courts below, there are also certain other features which would rule out any possibility of theft of the amount by someone else. It is the consistent evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 that the Petitioner came and informed P.W. 2 that Rs. 61,000/- to have been missing. It is also the consistent evidence of all the witnesses that the Petitioner on finding the ring of the cage door to have been tampered and declamped immediately went to P.W. 2 and informed him. Ext. 3 is the report lodged by him with the Agent regarding the shortage. After lodging of the report, police had come for enquiry and in their presence, verification of the cash had been undertaken. It was his statement there that he had gone out after closing all the drawers of the cash counter and cash box as also the door of the cash cage with locks. After lodging of the report, police had come for enquiry and in their presence, verification of the cash had been undertaken. It was his statement there that he had gone out after closing all the drawers of the cash counter and cash box as also the door of the cash cage with locks. When he came back to the cash counter he found the lock ring of the cash cage door to be broken and he immediately informed the matter to the Branch Manager and the Accountant and they informed the matter to the nearest police station. It was never the case of the Petitioner that on seeing the damaged condition of the door of the cash cage, he had gone inside the cage and looked at the contents of the drawers. Hence it was impossible for him by merely looking at the broken door of the cash cage to have known about the shortage of about Rs. 61,000/- and informed the same to the Bank Manager and very surprisingly the same amount was also found to be missing on verification. Faced with such improbability, the Petitioner in his statement u/s 313, Code of Criminal Procedure contended that when he came to the cash cage, he found the same to be broken and he also saw the lower drawer to be in a pulled out condition. In his further statement u/s 313, Code of Criminal Procedure he also stated that both the drawers were locked but the lower drawer had been broken in his absence. There is absolutely no evidence that the lock of the lower drawer had been damaged. It was only found in an unlocked condition. It is also not the statement of the Petitioner in Exit. 3 that when he discovered the tampering of the cage door, he had also found the lower drawer to have been pulled out. It is from this lower drawer that the shortage amount was missing. Thus since both the drawers had been locked by the Petitioner as also the cage door, even if the cage door was tampered, it would not be possible that the amount of cash would automatically be missing unless the lock of the lower drawer was also damaged for which however there is no evidence. 6. Thus since both the drawers had been locked by the Petitioner as also the cage door, even if the cage door was tampered, it would not be possible that the amount of cash would automatically be missing unless the lock of the lower drawer was also damaged for which however there is no evidence. 6. For such reasons, as also the findings of the learned Additional Sessions Judge that there was no possibility of anybody else committing theft of the amount, I would hold that the charge had been brought home against the Petitioner and that there is no scope for interference with the findings of both the Courts below in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. 7. In the result, the revision is dismissed as being without any merit. Revision dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed