K. P. MOHAPATRA, J. ( 1 ) THIS criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Puri, confirming the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nayagarh, convicting the petitioner for an offence under S. 408, I. P. C. and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months more. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case in short is that the petitioner was serving as the Secretary of the Gaudaput Service Co-operative Society (hereinafter referred to as the 'society') between 22-2-1976 to 28-6-1976. P. Ws. 2,3, 4, 6 and 7 had taken loans from the Society. In between 22-2-1976 and 28-6-1976, they repaid the loans, which the petitioner accepted. He did not, however, readily give them receipts. He did not also make entries of such repayments in the General Cash Book and did not deposit the same in the society's cash. In all he misappropriated a sum of Rs. 1,912/ -. He fabricated the collections in the loan ledger by showing different dates of collection of loans with the intent to defraud the Society. On audit, the misappropriation was detected and P. W. 1 made a complaint to the effect that the petitioner had committed offences under Ss. 408,468 and 477a, I. P. C. ( 3 ) THE defence of the petitioner during trial was totals denial of the allegations brought against him. He stated that he did not collect the loan amounts. Therefore, there was no question of his having misappropriated the sum of Rs. 1,912/ -. He also denied for having made interpolations in the loan ledger. ( 4 ) THE learned Judicial Magistrate accepted the prosecution evidence and held that there was proof that the petitioner had accepted repayment of loans from P. Ws. 2, 3, 4,6 and 7 but misappropriated the amounts. He, however, disbelieved that with dishonest intention the petitioner perpetrated forgery of the loan ledger. Therefore, while convicting him for the offence under S. 408, he acquitted the petitioner for the offences under Ss. 468 and 477a, I. P. C. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge upheld the judgment and order of conviction and sentence. ( 5 ) MR. He, however, disbelieved that with dishonest intention the petitioner perpetrated forgery of the loan ledger. Therefore, while convicting him for the offence under S. 408, he acquitted the petitioner for the offences under Ss. 468 and 477a, I. P. C. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge upheld the judgment and order of conviction and sentence. ( 5 ) MR. S. K. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, urged that the prosecution has neither proved entrustment nor misappropriation. There is no proof that the repayment of loan amounts said to have been collected by the petitioner were brought into and accounted for in the General Cash Book and deposited with the society's cash. In such circumstances, the learned Courts below committed a serious error of law and fact by convicting and sentencing the petitioner. Mr. D. Naik, learned counsel for the opposite party, on the other hand urged that entrustment of cash having been proved and the petitioner having not discharged the onus as to how he dealt with the amounts of cash entrusted to his care, the case under S. 408, I. P. C. was complete and so interference by the Court of revision is unwarranted. ( 6 ) I have gone through the judgments passed by the learned Courts below and glanced into the evidence of the prosecution witnesses particularly those of P. Ws. 2,3,4,6 and 7 who had taken loans from the society. They all stated that on the specific dates they made payments to him who was admittedly serving as the Secretary of the Society but were not given receipts readily. There is hardly any reason to disbelieve versions. Therefore, I accept as a fact that the petitioner received a sum of Rs. 1,827/- from the aforesaid witnesses towards repayment of the loans. ( 7 ) THE most important factor, however, is that the General Cash Book of the Society was not produced during the trial. It is, therefore, not known whether the amount of Rs. 1,827/- received by the petitioner was actually reflected in the General Cash Book or deposited with the cash of the society. It was the duty of the prosecution to produce the General Cash Book in order to show that the amounts received by the petitioner were not reflected in the General Cash Book nor deposited with the cash of the society. It was the duty of the prosecution to produce the General Cash Book in order to show that the amounts received by the petitioner were not reflected in the General Cash Book nor deposited with the cash of the society. No explanation was also given as to the non-production of the same. The relevant entry in the General Cash Book is the primary evidence whereas, the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 8, if any. is the secondary evidence. If primary evidence is not available because of its destruction, or for any other reason, then an explanation should have been given to that effect so that secondary evidence thereof could be accepted. In the absence of any explanation whatsoever, secondary evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 8 cannot be accepted with regard to non-mention of the amount in the General Cash Book. ( 8 ) HERE is a case where the petitioner accepted the amounts but the General Cash Book having not been produced it is not known whether the amounts have been reflected therein or taken over to the cash of the society. In such circumstances it cannot be said that entrustment of the cash to the petitioner who was the Secretary of the Society was complete in all respects. If entrustment has not been complete and proved, the question of misappropriation would not arise. In any event, non-production of the General Cash Book raises a doubt to the effect that the amounts received by the petitioner might have been reflected in it or might not have been reflected in it. If the Court is placed in the realm of suspicion of this nature, the benefit will go to the petitioner. In disagreement with the findings of the learned Courts below I am, therefore, of the view that in this case complete entrustment of the cash has not been proved and so the question of misappropriation would not arise. The petitioner is entitled to the benefit of doubt. ( 9 ) IN the result, the criminal revision is allowed and the petitioner is acquitted of the charge under S. 408, I. P. C. and is set at liberty. The bail bond is discharged. Revision allowed.