(1) THE Trial Magistrate recorded conviction of the appellant under Section 409 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to two years rigorous imprisonment. The conviction of the appellant was maintained by the appellate court. His revision before the High court of Patna was dismissed in limine. Hence this appeal. (2) THE case of the prosecution lies within a narrow compass. The appellant was working as a Tour Clerk as well as Nazir at Kuru West, Khanapuri Camp in the district of Ranchi under Shri Akhouri Balbhadra Sahay, Public Witness 7, an Assistant Settlement Officer in the Settlement Office. In routine Shri Sahay, Public Witness 7 went on tour on 22/2/1977. In his absence a sum of Rs. 1,500.00 was received in the Assistant Settlement Office from the head office, Ranchi. The appellant initially was reluctant to receive the money in the absence of his superior officer, but the latters counterpart in Kuru East, on asking, guided him that the money could well be received and handed over to Shri Sahay, Public Witness 7 on his return. On acceptance of such suggestion, the said sum of Rs. 1,500.00 was received by the appellant. This part of the prosecution case is admitted by the appellant. This means entrustment stood proved. (3) NOW with regard to disbursement we enter a grey area. The prosecution case is that Public Witness 7 on his return on the same day was apprised that such a sum had been received in the office by the appellant. The appellant had priorly, in acknowledgment of the receipt of the sum, made necessary entries and signed the General Cash Book. According to the prosecution the said sum had not been made over to Public Witness 7. The writing correspondingly occurring in the General Cash Book purporting to show that the said sum had been handed over to Public Witness 7 was a forgery and an interpolation by and under the hand of the appellant, after Public Witness 7 had made his signatures. The case of the appellant, on the other hand, is that on the return of Shri Sahay, Public Witness 7 in the evening the money was handed over to him and the receipt in the General Cash Book, though written by him, bears the signatures of Public Witness 7 at the appropriate place, in token of his having received the sum. (4) OUT of the two words, the courts in the hierarchy preferred to believe PW 7. When the entrustment is admitted by the appellant, it is for him to discharge the burden that the entrustment has been carried out as expected and the obligation has been discharged. It is undisputed that all that was required of the appellant was to hand over the money to Shri Sahay, Public Witness 7. His explanation in that regard has to be examined on preponderance of probabilities and not required to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Now whether his version is probable or not can best be seen from the way the document is depicted in the evidence and described by the courts below. (5) WE have also had the advantage of seeing a photograph of the relevant entry placed before us by the learned counsel for the appellant, which was not objected to by learned counsel for the State. The visual observation of the entry when tallied with the evidence discloses that on one leaf of the General Cash Book the receipt of Rs. 1,500.00 is mentioned by the appellant and on the other leaf disbursement has been shown by him of the said sum, figure of which is in the column meant for mentioning figures. Now in the next column, adjacent and in line to that figure of Rs. 1,500.00, are written two lines which are suggestive of the money being handed over to Public Witness 7. It is thereafter, where possible, on the third line, that Public Witness 7 had put his signatures. The placement of signatures raises a dust of doubt. The suggestion of Public Witness 7 that the two written lines above his signatures, by and under the hand of the appellant, were inserted later does stand the test of probabilities, even if we view with suspicion the change of colour of ink of those two lines, ostensibly written on the latter part of the day on the second occasion. Had those two lines not been there, then the signatures of Public Witness 7 would have been adjacent to and in line with the figure of Rs. 1,500.00 where the first line is, leaving no gap. There was apparently no reason for Public Witness 7 to put his signatures in the relevant column two lines after which the figure of Rs. 1,500.00 occurs. 1,500.00 where the first line is, leaving no gap. There was apparently no reason for Public Witness 7 to put his signatures in the relevant column two lines after which the figure of Rs. 1,500.00 occurs. If the version of the Public Witness 7 is to be relied upon, then his signatures should have been adjacent and in line to that figure. The view of the courts below regarding the dark colour of the ink of the entries, on the view we have taken, is not material because the clinching point is the placement of signatures. (6) THUS, we entertain a grave doubt as to whether the prosecution case in this regard is true. It could well be that the appellant had paid the money to PW 7, as depicted in the General Cash Book. But we do not mean to hold so definitely. All what we go to hold is that the defence of the appellant is probable and he must, therefore, get the benefit of doubt. (7) ACCORDINGLY, extending the benefit of doubt to the appellant we allow his appeal and set aside his conviction and sentence. The judgments and orders of the courts below are reversed.