S. C. MOHAPATRA, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal on Special leave being granted under Section 378 (1), Cr. P. C. is directed against judgment of acquittal of the respondent, tried for an offence under Section 406, I. P. C. ( 2 ) PROSECUTION case is that on 13-8-1982, P. W. 1 the Forester found 24 logs from bed of river Saveri and Sileru near Motu. They were seized under Ext. 5 and were kept in zima of accused as per Ext. 6. One year after P. W. 1 went to the village on 25-8-1983 and found existence of only six logs. Accused who was in zima of the logs could not account for the non-existence of the other logs and remained silent when asked. On that account, P. W. 1 lodged, information at Motu Police- Station on 27/3/1983. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused for having committed offence under Section 406, I. P. C. , alleging misappropriation of 18 Nos. of logs kept in his custody. Pleading not guilty, defence of the accused is that the logs alleged to have been mis-appropriated were stolen and he is not responsible for, there. ( 3 ) SINCE accusation is in respect of an offence under Section 406, I. P. C. , the said provision is to be kept in mind. It reads as follows: p406 Punishment for criminal breach of trust-Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. Criminal breach of trust is the essential requirement of an offence under Section 406, I. P. C: Meaning of the term has been provided in Section 405, I. P. C. Relevant portion of this provision reads as follows: p405 Criminal breach of trust-Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits criminal breach of trust. (Explanations 1 and 2 and illustrations omitted.) Thus, in order to bring home guilty, prosecution is required to prove. (i) Entrustment of any property to accused, (ii) such property is either misappropriated, converted to his own use by the person to whom it has been entrusted, and (iii) such misappropriation or conversion to own use is to be made dishonestly. Dishonestly has been defined in Section 24 which reads as follows: 24. Dishonest - Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, is said to so that thing 'dishonestly'. ( 4 ) SEVEN witnesses have been examined by the prosecution and six documents were exhibited to bring home the charge. Appreciating materials on record, Trial Court was not satisfied that accused dishonestly used or disposed of the logs and accordingly acquitted him. ( 5 ) THERE can be no doubt that logs are property and 24 logs were entrusted to the accused to be kept in his custody. It is not in dispute that 18 out of 24 logs were missing. Missing of the logs by itself does not amount to misappropriation or conversion to own use by accused. If such missing is on account of dishonest intention of the accused a case of misappropriation or conversion to his own use may be inferred from facts and circumstances of a case although there is no direct evidence in support of such misappropriation or conversion to own use. ( 6 ) THERE is no doubt that a person entrusted with the property has liability to return the same or give explanation cogently why the same cannot be returned. In this case, although P. W. 1 states that accused did not account for the logs missing, accused has given a reasonable explanation that the same were stolen and to support of his explanation, his information to Police to that effect has been proved. Merely because no explanation was given immediately to P. W. 1 an, inference cannot be drawn that the accused has misappropriated the same on the facts of this case. ( 7 ) UNLESS dishonest intention is clearly proved, with mere doubt accused ought to be convicted of the offence. ( 8 ) IN the result, there is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.-Appeal dismissed.