Judgment Loknath Prasad, J. 1. This revision is directed against the order of dismissal passed in Crl Appeal No. 307 of 1986 on 26-9-1989 by Shri Pradhan Umakant, Sessions Judge, Singhbhum at Chaibasa through which he confirmed the order of conviction and sentence recorded by Shri S. S. Rampuri, S. D. J. M., Chakradharpur at Chaibasa in G. R. Case No. 622/81. 2. The fact is short giving rise to this revision is that this case was instituted on the written report of Shri Mohan Mahato, Executive Engineer, P. H. E. D. of Chakradharpur addrressed to Officer-in-charge, Chakradharpur for instituting a case. It has been alleged by the informant that the petitioner Brajnandan Singh was cashier under him till March, 1981 and by office order No. 52 dated 19-2-1981 another Sr. Accounts clerk Gobardhan Sing Munda was posted as cashier in place of petitioner to be effective from 1-4-1981 and under the orders the petitioner should have been made overchage to Gobardhan Singh Munda on 1-4-1981. It has been alleged that in spite of repeated direction both oral and writing Brajnandan Singh not make complete charge as cashier and only gave one key of iron chest to did Gobardhan Singh Munda on 31-3-1981. Subsequently the petitioner gave cash book and some registers and vouchers and after audit it was found that in the cash book there was amount of Rs. 46,644 in the hand of the cashier and petitioner gave Rs. 3,200 at the time of handing over charge to Sri Munda, the cashier posted in his place and gave some vouchers subsequently and after due calculation it was found that the petitioner has not accounted for Rs. 25,494 75 p. which was available according to cash book to the new cashier and found defalcated this amount, It has also been alleged that a sum of Rs. 7,000 was given by the peititioner to S.D.O. Sonua by hand receipt but subsequently he committed forgery and this amount was converted into Rs. 17,000 and thus, also misappropriated Rs. 10,000 on this account and further defalcated Rs. 5,000 by making another hand receipt. 3. 7,000 was given by the peititioner to S.D.O. Sonua by hand receipt but subsequently he committed forgery and this amount was converted into Rs. 17,000 and thus, also misappropriated Rs. 10,000 on this account and further defalcated Rs. 5,000 by making another hand receipt. 3. On receipt of the written report by the Executive Engineer the police instittuted a case under Sections 409 and 468 of the Indian Penal Penal Code and after completing investigation submitted charge-sheet as against the petitioner claimed himself innocent in the court below and denied to have defalcated the amount of the Government rather his defence was that he handed over complete charge to Shri Munda, the cashier posted in his placed and in fact defaulcated the huge amount of money for that a criminal case was also instituted against him and he was convicted by the court below. The then S. D. J. M. Chakradharpur at Chaibasa after conclusion of trial found the petitioner guilty under Section 409, LP.C. only and convicted and sentenced him to undergo R. I. for three month only vide his jugment dated 30-8-1986. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with this order of conviction the petitioner preferred an appeal bearing Crl. Appeal No. 307/86 but ultimately that appeal was also dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge Chaibasa on 26-9-1989 and the conviction and sentence has recorded by the S. D. J. M. Chakradharpur was confirmed and maintaind. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order of dismissal the petitioner preferred this revision and challenged the finding of the court below mainly on the ground that actually there was no sufficient evidence to justify that the petitioner misappropriated the Government money as a cashier under the Executive Engineer, P. H. E. D. Chakradharpur rather he handad over complete charge to Shri Munda who actually misapropriated the Government fund and on the basis of insufficient evidence the court below recordded order of conviction as against the petitioner. 5. It is the admitted position that the petitioner was working as a cashier in the P. H. E. D., Chakradharpur under PW 4 the Executive Engineer and admittedly vide order dated 19-2-1981 that is Ext. 1 the petitioner was directed to handover, charge as a cashier to another Sr. 5. It is the admitted position that the petitioner was working as a cashier in the P. H. E. D., Chakradharpur under PW 4 the Executive Engineer and admittedly vide order dated 19-2-1981 that is Ext. 1 the petitioner was directed to handover, charge as a cashier to another Sr. clerk, Gobardban Singh Munda, PW 5 in this case and the petitioner has been charged for criminal breach of trust and misappropriation of the Government money during the period from 31st March, 1981 to 30th April, 1981. Under the circumstances the evidence of PWs 4 and 5 are very material because PW 4 is the Executive Engineer and head of the office and PW 5 had taken charge as a cashier in the afternoon of 31-3-1981 as ordered by the PW 4 through Ext. 1. From their evidence this fact is well proved that in pursuance of the office order the petitioner had not handed complete charge of all the registers and cash etc. on 31-3-1981 and put off the matter and on that day that is on 31-3-1981 simply handed over charge of one key of a safe and Rs. 3,200 in cash. It also appears from the record that the PW 5 also submitted report on various dates that the petitioner is not handing over comple charge and so there was various direction as contained in Ext. 3 series to the petitioner and subsequently on 22-6-1981 the petitioner handed over charge of cash book and some registers and the vouchers and free from the cash book it is clear that a sum of Rs. 46,644 was cash in hand of the petitioner and some vouchers were produced and after deducting the expenditure of all the vouchers and Rs. 3,200 which he handed over to PW 5 it was found that Rs. 25,49475 remained with the petitioner and he has not accoundted that so far this amount is concerned and Ext. 5 is the report of PW 5 of this point which supports the evidence of PWs 4 and 5. 6. Further more from the evidence of PW 1 it can be said that on 31-3-1981 the date fixed for handing over charged the petitioner had not complete the charged and simply gave a key and some amount. 5 is the report of PW 5 of this point which supports the evidence of PWs 4 and 5. 6. Further more from the evidence of PW 1 it can be said that on 31-3-1981 the date fixed for handing over charged the petitioner had not complete the charged and simply gave a key and some amount. The PW5, is Johan Boipai, Divisional Accountant and a 6taff of the A. G. Office Ranchi deputed to work as a Divisional Accountant. He too claimed that the petitioner had not handed over charge to his successor and there was some discrepancy in the vouchers. Further more there was an audit and as claimed by the PW 6 the Auditor of the Finance department and the defaulcation by the petitioner is also proved by the Audit report that is Ext. 13. No doubt there is also an allegation that the petitioner forged a hand receipt granted by the S. D. O. Sonua that he took Rs. 7,000 as advance and Rs. 7,000 amount has been interpolated converted into Rs. 17,000. But this forgery has not been proved beyond any doubt. But there is no two opinions that due to oral and documenary evidence this fact is well proved that the petitioner has not accounted for the balance amount which he got to the tune of Rs. 25,494.75 p. as a cashier as per the cash book to his successor and as such both the courts below were perfectly justified in convicting and sentencing the petitioner under Section 409 of the I. P. C. 7. No doubt it is the defence of the petitioner that he handed over complete charge of his office as a cashier including the cash amount and the register etc. to the PW 5 and actually PW 5 committed criminal breach of trust by misappropriating Government money and for that criminal case was also instituted against him and he was found guilty under that count. But from the evidence on record the petitioner has not been able to prove that he handed over complete charge to the PW 5 rather from the evidence adducee on behalf of prosecution this fact is well proved that he misappropriated the Government money at least more than Rs. 25,000 as mentioned above. But from the evidence on record the petitioner has not been able to prove that he handed over complete charge to the PW 5 rather from the evidence adducee on behalf of prosecution this fact is well proved that he misappropriated the Government money at least more than Rs. 25,000 as mentioned above. It is quite possible that the successor of the petitioner PW 5 was also charged for criminal breach of trust and for misappropriation of the Government money but that too was for different period and different amount. 8. So on careful consideration of the entire evidence on record this much can be said that there is no merit in this revision and so for as sentcnc is concerned the courts below have taken a lenient view by sentencing the petitioner to undergo R. I. for three months only under Section 409 of the I. P. C. and as such it does not required any interference. 9. In the result this revision is dimissed and the bail bond of the petitioner is cancelled and he is directed to surrreader before the trial Court for undergoing the remaining part of the imprisonment failing which the court below will take steps for his apprehension according to law.