ORDER : K. Jayachandra Reddy, J. 1. The appellant, Nand Kumar, was tried along with two others for offences punishable under Sections 420 read with 120-B Indian Penal Code. The trial court convicted them and the appellant was sentenced to one and a half-year’s rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs 500 and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The two other accused were also sentenced likewise. The appeals preferred by them were dismissed by the Sessions Court. Further revision was also dismissed by the High Court. To challenge his conviction and sentence the appellant filed this appeal pursuant to the special leave granted. 2. The appellant was working as a clerk in the Post Office, Batala and on January 2, 1976 he was a registration clerk and his duty was to receive the registered letters. He received a registered letter No. 950 which contained a Bank Draft of Rs 12,324 payable to a local firm. The complainant who did not receive the draft moved the authority. The investigation commenced and the Police filed a charge-sheet to the effect that the appellant conspired with Balak Ram and Harbhajan Singh and managed to take out the draft which was encashed by the other two accused by opening an account. It may not be necessary for us to deal with the case of the other two accused. So far as the appellant is concerned, the definite case of the prosecution is that he entered into a conspiracy and having received the registered letter which contained a draft handed over the same to the other two accused pursuant to the conspiracy hatched by them. The appellant admitted that he received the registered letter but pleaded that in due course of his duty he handed it over to the postman. This plea was not accepted by the courts below in view of the evidence of PW 8 a clerk in the concerned Post Office and also the entries in the register. The evidence of PW 8 shows that the appellant received a registered letter and made an entry to that effect in the register. But there is no other entry as to what happened whether it was delivered to the addressee or kept in balance or returned back or lost. PW 8 was not even cross-examined. The evidence of PW 8 shows that the appellant received a registered letter and made an entry to that effect in the register. But there is no other entry as to what happened whether it was delivered to the addressee or kept in balance or returned back or lost. PW 8 was not even cross-examined. Relying on this documentary and oral evidence all the three courts have accepted the prosecution case. 3. Learned counsel submitted before us that the non-examination of the postman helps the prosecution. We are unable to agree. Admittedly, the appellant received the registered letter and it was his duty to make the necessary entries as to whether it was delivered but no such definite entry is there in the register. This, coupled with the evidence of PW 8, is enough to bring home the guilt of the appellant. The non-examination of the postman does not make any difference. 4. The appellant was a clerk and this occurrence is said to have taken place in the year 1976 and he has been in jail for five months. In these circumstances, while confirming the conviction of the appellant we reduce the sentence to the period already undergone. The sentence of fine with default clause are confirmed. 5. Subject to the modification of the sentence the appeal is dismissed.