JUDGMENT The appellant at the relevant time was employed as a Laboratory Attendant in the Fruit Canning Unit at Naubhar, Shimla in the year 1974. One of his duties was to collect the daily sale proceeds of fruit products from the salesmen and deposit the same in the local treasury. He was prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 409 and 477A, I.P.C. alleging that during the period from 30th May, 1974 to 16th August, 1974, he received a total sum of Rs. 11,598.15 from the salesmen but failed to deposit the same in the treasury and created bogus and false treasury challan numbers recorded in the certificates in the cash books and made it appear as if the same had been deposited. The trial Court acquitted him holding that the Treasury Officer, PW-12 has not produced the original register of deposits and that he admittedly said that he did not look into the subsidiary register to verify whether or not the allegedly defalcated amount has been deposited before issuing the certificate regarding these deposits. 2. The State preferred an appeal challenging the order of acquittal and the High Court having considered the entire evidence on record as also the plea taken by the accused, came to the conclusion that the Magistrate erred in drawing such an adverse inference and that the evidence of PW-12 coupled with the evidence of PW-6 would establish that the accused committed the offence of criminal breach of trust and falsification of the documents. The High Court, however, in awarding the sentence observed that the offences committed by the accused are antisocial in nature and required to be dealt with deterrent punishment and in that view sentenced him to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. in default of which to suffer further six months simple imprisonment. Hence the present appeal. 3. Mr. M. N. Krishnamani, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the view taken by the trial Court is a reasonable one and even assuming that the two views are possible, the High Court ought not to have disturbed the acquittal. It is also his submission that the prosecution had not been able to conclusively establish that the deposits were not made as claimed by the appellant. It is also his submission that the prosecution had not been able to conclusively establish that the deposits were not made as claimed by the appellant. In support of his submission he relied on the evidence of PW-12, particularly that part of the cross-examination wherein it is admitted that the bundle of challans has not been verified. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, it is quite possible that the accused deposited the amounts and at any rate a reasonable doubt is there and the benefit of that doubt should go to the accused. 4. We have examined the evidence of PW-12. He has clearly deposed that he issued the certificate Exhibit PB/1 which shows that no such deposits were made after verifying the records and also after having examined the subisdiary register. In the cross-examination, he admitted that there was only one register under the head Agricultural Department. He again asserted that he had issued certificate Exhibit PB/1 only after consulting the subsidiary register and he did not see at all the challan file or the bundle of challans. He, however, denied the suggestion that all the challans entered in Exhibit PB/1 were mainly prepared by the accused. The witness, however, stated that if such challans were there, there shall be corresponding entries in the register and since there were no such entries the only inference was that the deposits were not made. 5. We see no reason to discard the evidence of PW-12. It may be mentioned at this juncture that the High Court also recorded the evidence of PW-6, the Director of Horticulture under whom the acused was working and he deposed that the accused admitted before him that he had not made the deposits and he also filed Exhibits 6A and 6B as admission by the accused that he has not made the deposits. Though it is argued that it does not amount to confession, we need not go into the question in the facts and circumstances. This is a case where certain facts were within the knowledge of the accused and to some extent the burden lies on him to rebut the allegations made by the prosecution. Though it is argued that it does not amount to confession, we need not go into the question in the facts and circumstances. This is a case where certain facts were within the knowledge of the accused and to some extent the burden lies on him to rebut the allegations made by the prosecution. These admissions coupled with a certificate issued by PW-12 would go to show that the deposits were not made as claimed by the accused and that there was no preponderance of possibilities that the plea taken by him that the deposits were made is plausible. Therefore, we see no grounds to interfere with the findings of the High Court convicting the appellant for the aforementioned offences. 6. Now, coming to the sentences, the defalcationis said to have taken place in the year 1974 and the amount involved is also not a large one. The High Court, however, has imposed two years sentence observing that the offence committed is of an antisocial nature and therefore, deterrent sentence should be awarded. However, as mentioned above, the offence was committed in the year 1974. The accused has lost his job or is likely to lose his job. Under these circumstances, we do not propose to send him back to jail. The records show that he has been in jail for quite some time. The ends of Justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone by him. Accordingly, the convictions are confirmed but the sentence of imprisonment of two years is reduced to the period he had already undergone. The sentence of fine with default clause, however, is confirmed. With this modification, the appeal is disposed of. Order accordingly. For Citation:  1995 Cri. LJ 3646