S. K. MOHANTY, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision arises out of an appellate judgment confirming the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 408, IPC. In the trial court, petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 1,000. 00, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. In appeal, only the substantive sentence of imprisonment has been reduced to two years. ( 2 ) PROSECUTION story in brief is that the informant (P. W. 1) owns a grocery shop inside Baripada Market complex where the petitioner was working as a Salesman. On 14-9-1986, at about 6. 30 P. M. , the informant sent the petitioner with a letter addressed to the younger son P. W. 4 to fetch Rs. 10,000. 00 from his residence. Accordingly, the petitioner went and showing the letter to P. W. 4 brought Rs. 10,000. 00 from him. But instead of returning to the shop and delivering the amount to informant, he went away with the amount and thus, committed the offence for criminal breach of trust in respect of the said amount. ( 3 ) DURING investigation, police seized a sum of Rs. 5,500. 00 from the petitioner's sister and Rs. 200. 00 from his father-in-law. ( 4 ) THE petitioner admitted that he was serving as an employee under P. W. 1, but contended to have left the employment much prior to the alleged occurrence as the informant did not pay his dues. According to him, as he demanded his dues, the case has been falsely foisted against him. ( 5 ) BOTH the courts below accepting the prosecution evidence have held that the petitioner received Rs. 10,000. 00 from P. W. 4, the informant's son and dishonestly misappropriated the same. ( 6 ) MR. Dhal for the petitioner submitted that the letter claimed to have been sent by the petitioner to his younger son P. W. 4 to fetch Rs. 10,000. 00 from his house having not been seized and proved in court, the prosecution story of entrustment of Rs. 10,000. 00 should not have been believed. It was also argued that even if the entrustment is believed, there is no evidence of misappropriation much less dishonest misappropriation, and consequently the order of conviction and sentence is liable to be set aside. 10,000. 00 should not have been believed. It was also argued that even if the entrustment is believed, there is no evidence of misappropriation much less dishonest misappropriation, and consequently the order of conviction and sentence is liable to be set aside. ( 7 ) AS to the letter, P. W. 4 has deposed that the same was written and sent by his father. It is admitted by the informant that he did not show the letter to the police and the police did not seize the same. In the facts of the case, seizure of the letter would not have improved the matter in as much as in that event it could be argued by the defence that the letter had been fabricated for the purpose of this case. ( 8 ) NOW the evidence led by the prosecution that the petitioner worked as a servant of the informant, that in such capacity he was entrusted with a sum of Rs. 10,000. 00, and that he committed criminal breach of trust in respect thereof may be briefly stated. P. Ws 2 and 3 are two other salesman in the shop of the informant (P. W. 1 ). P. Ws. 4 and 5 are the son and brother of the informant. It reveals from the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 5, that the petitioner was serving as a salesman in the informant's shop at the relevant time and on 14-9-1986 at about 6 P. M. the informant sent the petitioner to his house with a letter to his son (P. W. 4) and key of the almirah, to bring a sum of Rs. 10,000. 00 from his son. The son (P. W. 4) on receipt of the letter and key of the almirah, brought out Rs. 10,000. 00 in the shape of hundred rupee currency notes from the almirah and handed over the same to the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter did not return to the shop either in that night or thereafter. P. Ws. 4 and 5 in that night went to the house of the petitioner, the bus-stand and other place in the town of Baripada but could not trace him out. They were told by the wife of the petitioner, that the latter had not returned to the house. There is nothing material in the cross-examination of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses to discard their testimony as unreliable. They were told by the wife of the petitioner, that the latter had not returned to the house. There is nothing material in the cross-examination of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses to discard their testimony as unreliable. It reveals from the evidence of the Investigating Officer (P. W. 9) that after registering the case on 14-9-86, he searched for the petitioner in his house at Baripada and found him absent. Thereafter he searched him at various places in Balasore district and gave requisition to Khantapada Police Station in Balasore district as the petitioner was a permanent resident within the jurisdiction of that Police Station and ultimately on 25-10-86 he managed to arrest the petitioner from his uncle-in-law's house at Baripada. From all these evidence it is clearly established that the petitioner while under employment as a salesman in the shop of the informant was entrusted with cash of Rs. 10,000. 00 by his son (P. W. 4) in the evening of 14-9-1986 to bring the same to the informant's shop, but instead of doing so, he went away somewhere till he was spotted by the Investigating Officer on 25-10-1986 in his uncle-in-law's house at Baripada. As revealed from the evidence of the Investigating Officer, after arrest the petitioner while in custody led him to his sister's house under Khantapada Police Station and asked his sister to give the cash, whereupon the sister gave 55 pieces of hundred rupee currency notes and the Investigating Officer seized the same under the seizure list Ext. 3. ( 9 ) AS in all criminal cases, an accused in a case of criminal breach of trust is presumed to be innocent until he is proved guilty. Thus the burden of proving the ingredients of the offence always rests on the prosecution. The two essential ingredients of criminal breach of trust are entrustment and dishonest misappropriation. At the first instance, prosecution must make out a prima facie case against the accused on the point of misappropriation and then it will be for the accused to show that he is not liable. Prima facie case does not mean raising a suspicion and then bringing in aid Section 106 of the Evidence Act in order to throw the burden on accused to prove his innocence. ( 10 ) THE petitioner's sister did not support the prosecution case that a sum of Rs. 5,500. Prima facie case does not mean raising a suspicion and then bringing in aid Section 106 of the Evidence Act in order to throw the burden on accused to prove his innocence. ( 10 ) THE petitioner's sister did not support the prosecution case that a sum of Rs. 5,500. 00 in the shape of hundred rupee currency notes was given to her by the petitioner. Even if the evidence of the Investigating Officer on this point is not accepted, the prosecution cannot fail. That is because, law is well settled that it is neither necessary nor possible in every case of criminal breach of trust to prove the precise mode of misappropriation or conversion to one's own use of the entrusted property, by the accused, the same being ordinarily not capable of proof by direct evidence. It does not mean thereby that the prosecution is absolved from the burden of proving misappropriation. This burden can be discharged by proof of circumstances which lead to the irresistible conclusion of misappropriation. Then again mere proof of misappropriation is not enough. The further burden that lies on the prosecution is to prove that the accused was actuated by dishonest intention while misappropriating the entrusted property. In other words, misappropriation with intention of causing wrongful gain or wrongful loss cannot be assumed and must be proved either by positive evidence or may be presumed from proved circumstances. Wrongful gain includes wrongful retention and wrongful loss includes being kept out of the property and being deprived of the same. It is, however, not necessary to prove either actual wrongful gain or actual wrongful loss. Mere failure on the part of the accused to account for the property entrusted is not enough since it is only a piece of evidence pointing dishonest intention and must be considered along with other facts and circumstances appearing in a case. Where however an accused is unable to account or renders a false explanation for failure to account, an inference of misappropriation with dishonest intention may readily be inferred. ( 11 ) IN the case at hand, the petitioner took a false stand that he was not serving under the informant and that he was not entrusted with Rs. 10,000. 00 as alleged by the prosecution. ( 11 ) IN the case at hand, the petitioner took a false stand that he was not serving under the informant and that he was not entrusted with Rs. 10,000. 00 as alleged by the prosecution. Furthermore, after the entrustment in the evening of 14-9-1986, the petitioner absconded and was spotted about 40 days thereafter in the house of his uncle-in-law. The fact that the petitioner wrongfully retained the money thereby keeping the informant out of the money depriving him of the same, absconded for a number of days, clearly establishes his intention of causing wrongful gain to himself and wrongful loss to the informant. The evidence on record thus clearly proves that he either misappropriated the money or converted the same to his own use with dishonest intention, Consequently, the offence under Section 408, IPC is clearly proved and the petitioner has rightly been convicted thereunder. ( 12 ) ON above analysis, conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 408, IPC is unassailable. The petitioner is a young man of 29 years. It is not disputed that he was the first offender and there was nothing against his character and antecedents. He was also a family man. The case incident took place 8 years back. More than half of the amount misappropriated has since been recovered. In such background, it is felt that that one year's rigorous imprisonment would meet the ends of justice. The sentence is accordingly modified. In the result, the revision is dismissed with modification in the sentence as above. Revision dismissed.