JUDGMENT R. L. Khurana J.-The present appeal has been directed by the State under section 378, Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment 9-9-1987 of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh, whereby the respondent, hereinafter referred to as the accused was acquitted of the offence under section 409, Indian Penal Code. 2 Briefly stated, the prosecution story is this. The accused was working as an Accountant with the Himachal Pradesh Mineral and Industrial Development Corporation at its units at Nalagarh since 1977, In his capacity as Accountant, he was handling the cash of tie Corporation besides being responsible for the maintenance of its accounts. One Brig. B. S. Chauhan was the Chief Security Officer-cum-Project Manager of the various units of the Corporation at Nalagarh. The accused was found to have not maintained and kept the accounts regularly inasmuch as he was not found to have made the day-to-day entries of the transactions in the cashbook. He was, therefore, directed by the Project Manager to make and complete the up-to-date entries in the cash book. On the completion of the cash book, it v\as found that the accused had shown a sum of Rs. 24,306-37 paise as having been drawn by him from time to time as advance vide various payment vouchers as under :- Sr. No. Date of voucher Purpose of advance Amount 1. 14-1-1980 Advance control Account Rs. 2000.00 2. 17-1-1980 -do- Rs. 2000.00 3. 21-1-1980 -do- Rs. 1500.00 4. 22-1-1980 -do- Rs. 1000.00 5. 10-2-1980 -do- Rs. 1000.00 6. 21-2-1980 -do- Rs. 2000.00 7. 18-7-1980 -do- Rs. 1000.00 8. 19-7-1980 -do- Rs. 1000.00 9. 23-7-1980 -do- Rs. 1000.00 10. 12-8-1980 -do- Rs. 3000.00 11. 13-9-1980 -do- Rs. 8806.37 p. Total Rs. 24,306.37 p 3. The accused on being called upon to account for the said account, failed to do so He was, thus, found to have committed criminal misappropriation of the same, A report was accordingly made to the police by the above-named Project Manager on the basis of which a case under section 408. Indian Penal Code came to be registered against the accused on 1-6-1982 vide F. I. R. No. 54/82 at Police Station, Nalagarh. 4. Prior to the registration of the case, the accused on 10 4-1982 after having admitted his liability had issued a cheque for a sum of Rs. Indian Penal Code came to be registered against the accused on 1-6-1982 vide F. I. R. No. 54/82 at Police Station, Nalagarh. 4. Prior to the registration of the case, the accused on 10 4-1982 after having admitted his liability had issued a cheque for a sum of Rs. 20,000 in favour of the Corporation and had undertaken to pay the balance amount of Rs. 4306.37p. This cheque on having been presented to the bank was dishonoured for want of funds. 5. During the course of investigation, the accused on 15-7-1982 and 10-9-1982 deposited sums of Rs. 4306.37 paise and Rs. 5,000 respectively with the Corporation. He failed to account for the balance amount of Rs. 15,000. 6. The payment vouchers Ex. PW 5/A-l to PW 5/A-il, referred to above alongwith the specimen handwriting of the accused were referred to handwriting expert for comparison and opinion. Vouchers Ex. PW 5/A-l to PW 5/A 6 were found to be in the handwriting of and signed by the accused, while vouchers Ex. PW 5/A 7 to Ex. PW 5/A-l 1 were in the handwriting of PW Kishori Lai. The endorsements on all these vouchers pertaining to receipt of the amounts mentioned therein were found to have been signed by the accused. Cheque Ex. P-12 was also found to be in the handwriting of and signed by the accused. After the completion of the investigation, on a case having been found against the accused for the offence under section 409, Indian Penal Code, he was accordingly arrested, challaned and sent up for trial. 7. On a charge having been framed against the accused for the offence under section 409, Indian Penal Code, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 8. The prosecution in support of its case produced documentary as well as oral evidence. Seven witnesses were examined in all. 9. The accused in his statement recorded under section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, admitted that during the relevant period he was working as Accountant with the Corporation. He, however, denied having prepared the payment vouchers Ex. PW 5/A-l to Ex PW 5/A-l 1 and having received the amounts detailed therein as advance He also denied having made the corresponding entries in the cash book of the Corporation. Though he admitted having issued the cheque Ex. P-12 in favour of the Corporation for a sum of Rs. He, however, denied having prepared the payment vouchers Ex. PW 5/A-l to Ex PW 5/A-l 1 and having received the amounts detailed therein as advance He also denied having made the corresponding entries in the cash book of the Corporation. Though he admitted having issued the cheque Ex. P-12 in favour of the Corporation for a sum of Rs. 20f000, it was pleaded that the said cheque was taken from him under threat and coercion. He admitted that his specimen handwriting/signatures were taken before a Magistrate during the course of investigation. It was further pleaded that he has been falsely implicated in the present case and that the department had forcibly obtained a promissory note from him and that a civil suit for the recovery of the amount was pending against him. In his defence evidence, the accused has tendered into evidence Ex D-l and D-2, the copy of replication and written statement respectively filed by the parties in the civil suit filed by the Corporation against the accused for the recovery of Rs. 54,815 45 paise. 10 The learned Magistrate upon consideration of the material Ipaced before him, came to the conclusion that a case under section 409, Indian Penal Code, did not stand proved against the accused. He, therefore, vide the impugned judgment acquitted the accused of the offence under section 409, Indian Penal Code. 11 The State by virtue of the present appeal has assailed the acquittal of the accused inter alia on the grounds that the impugned judgment has been passed in a slipshod manner without appreciating the prosecution evidence in its right perspective and without application of judicial mind by ignoring the basic principles of law. The evidence led by the prosecution conclusively proves the case against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. 12. On the contrary, Shri Ramakant Sharma, the learned Counsel for the accused, has supported the impugned judgment acquitting the accused of the offence charged against him on the grounds and for the reasons stated therein. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 13. There is no denying that the accused was a public servant at the relevant time and was working as Accountant with the Himachal Pradesh Mineral and Industrial Development Corporation at Nalagarh. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 13. There is no denying that the accused was a public servant at the relevant time and was working as Accountant with the Himachal Pradesh Mineral and Industrial Development Corporation at Nalagarh. It is also admitted that in the capacity of being such an Accountant, the accused was to maintain the accounts of the Corporation, According to the prosecution story, as Accountant the accused was also handling cash of the Corporation. The accused, on the other hand, has stated that handling of cash of the Corporation was not a part of his duties. 14. Even if it be assumed that the accused in the capacity of being the Accountant of the Corporation was not handling the case, evidence has come on the record to show that the accused during the period 14-1-1980 to 13-9-1980 vide vouchers Ex. PW5/A 11 to PW 5/A-ll received a sum of Rs. 24306.37 paise from the Corporation under the head "Advance Control Account". The payment vouchers Ex. PW 5/A-l to PW 5/A-6 have been proved to be in the handwriting of and signed by the accused. Payment vouchers Ex. PW 5/A-7 to Ex. PW 5/A-ll are in the handwriting of PW 6 Kishori Lal, a clerk of the Corporation The signatures on Ex. PW 5/A-l to Ex. PW 5/A-ll under the endorsement of the receipt of the accounts have been proved to be that of the accused. PW 5 Shubhashish Dey, Assistant Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, Shimla, who had examined the disputed handwriting/signatures on Ex, PW 5/A-l to Ex. PW 5/A-l 1 alongwith the admitted specimen handwriting/signatures of the accused has categorically stated to this effect. The evidence of the handwriting expert is further corroborated by the evidence of PW 6 Kishori Lal who has identified the handwriting/signatures of the accused on the vouchers Ex. PW S/A-l to Ex. PW 5/A-l1. 15 It is significant to note that PW 6 Kishori Lal has not been cross-examined by the accused on the point of identification of the handwriting/ signatures of the accused on payment vouchers Ex PW 5/A-l to Ex. PW 5/A-ll. Therefore, this aspect of the case will be deemed to have been admitted by the accused. PW 5/A-l1. 15 It is significant to note that PW 6 Kishori Lal has not been cross-examined by the accused on the point of identification of the handwriting/ signatures of the accused on payment vouchers Ex PW 5/A-l to Ex. PW 5/A-ll. Therefore, this aspect of the case will be deemed to have been admitted by the accused. Similarly, nothing could be elicited in the cross-examination of PW 5, the handwriting expert to show that his opinion was wrong or that the handwriting/signatures on Ex. PW 5/A-l to Ex PW 5/A-ll are not that of the accused. 16. The prosecution has thus been able to prove by convincing evidence that the accused received a sum of Rs. 24,306.37 paise from the Corporation as advance and thus got dominion over the same. The accused has failed to account for such amount received by him. 17. The learned Counsel for the accused has contended that a dishonest intention being an essential ingredient of the offence under section 409, Indian Penal Code, the mere failure on the part of the accused either to return the money or account for the same would not conclusively prove dishonest intention, 18 It is well settled that the question of intention is not a matter of direct proof. It is a matter of inference from the facts and circumstances of each case. 19. In the present case, it has been proved beyond any shadow of doubt that a sum of Rs, 24,306.37 paise was received by the accused as advance from the account of the Corporation under the head "Advance Control Account" He has failed to account for the same Instead of offering an explanation for the non-accounting for the said amount, the accused has denied having received such amount. The dishonest intention on the part of the accused can also be inferred from the fact that much before the registration of the present case, he had delivered a cheque, Ex. P-12, for Rs. 20,000 00 on 10-4-1982 in favour of the Corporation Such cheque had bounced on having been presented to the bank for want of funds 20. The accused has not denied the cheque Ex, P-12. His case is that the same was obtained from him by threat and under coercion However, no evidence has been led in this regard. 20,000 00 on 10-4-1982 in favour of the Corporation Such cheque had bounced on having been presented to the bank for want of funds 20. The accused has not denied the cheque Ex, P-12. His case is that the same was obtained from him by threat and under coercion However, no evidence has been led in this regard. Neither any such suggestion has been given to any of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, 21. Much reliance was placed on Ex D-l and D-2 by the learned Counsel for the accused It was contended that the failure on the part of the accused to account for the amount received by him, gives rise to a civil liability and that in view of the fact that a civil suit stands filed by the Corporation for the recovery of the amount, the accused cannot be held guilty for the offence under section 409, Indian Penal Code. 22. No benefit can be derived by the accused from Ex, D-1 and D-2, which are copies of the replication and written statement respectively. A perusal of Ex. D-2 shows that a suit for recovery of Rs. 54,815.45 paise has been filed by the Corporation against the accused on the basis of some promissory note. There is nothing on the record to show, that the said suit pertains to the amount involved ia the present case. No copy of the plaint has been filed. 23. Besides, merely because there is a civil remedy a case for criminal breach of trust cannot be thrown out. A criminal liability for criminal breach of trust is totally different from the civil liability and under the law the accused can be simultaneously proceeded against for civil liability and for the criminal liability. If the ingredients of the offence under section 409, Indian Penal Code, are made out, the mere existence of a civil liability would not bar the criminal case nor an accused is entitled to acquittal merely because a civil suit for the recovery of the amount stood filed against him. From the evidence coming on the record, all the necessary ingredients pf the offence under section 409, Indian Penal Code, stand proved against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt and we hold him guilty for the said offence. 24. Consequently, the present appeal is allowed. From the evidence coming on the record, all the necessary ingredients pf the offence under section 409, Indian Penal Code, stand proved against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt and we hold him guilty for the said offence. 24. Consequently, the present appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of the learned trial Court acquitting the accused is set aside. The accused is, accordingly, convicted for the offence under section 409, Indian Penal Code. 25. Next arises the question of sentence to be imposed upon the accused. The offence under section 409, Indian Penal Code, is punishable with imprisonment for life Therefore, the benefit of section 4, Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 cannot be made available to the accused. 26 In Ganeshbhai Shankarbhai v. The State of Gujarat, AIR 1972 SC 1618, the accused was acquitted by the trial Court but sentenced to four months rigorous imprisonment by the High Court. The Supreme Court, on appeal, reduced it to the period of 19 days already served in view of the fact that the accused had secured another job after his acquittal and was working at it. 27. In State of Orissa v. Mukteswar Panda, 1986 Cr LJ 1025, the misappropriation was committed ten years back and whereas one department of the Government being dissatisfied with the acquittal of the accused decided to prefer appeal, another department restored the accused to his office. In this background and in the peculiar circumstances of the case even though a substantive sentence was called for the High Court of Orissa refrained from ordering one on the expectation that conviction and a lenient sentence would make the accused and society aware of the need to observe restraint and the rule of law meticulously. Accordingly, the accused therein was sentenced to substantive sentence till the rising of the Court and fine of Rs. 5,000. 28. Similarly, in Krupasindhu Prusty v. State of Orissa, 1987 Cr LJ 1426, since a period of thirteen years had elapsed since the commission of the sentence, the High Court of Orissa reduced the substantive sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone while the amount of fine was enhanced to Rs 750. The apex Court in Kassim Pillai Abdul v. State of Kerala, 1979 SCC (Cri) 102, also reduced the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone on the consideration that the accused therein had already returned the money misappropriated. 29. The apex Court in Kassim Pillai Abdul v. State of Kerala, 1979 SCC (Cri) 102, also reduced the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone on the consideration that the accused therein had already returned the money misappropriated. 29. In the present case, the misappropriation took place in the year 1980. As many as sixteen years have elapsed since then. The accused has paid back a part of the money misappropriated by him, during the course of investigation of the case. He has also left the job of the Corporation. Taking into consideration all these facts we are of the opinion that the accused should be dealt with leniently. No useful purpose would be served in sending the accused to jail at this stage when sixteen longs years have passed since after the commission of the offence. We, therefore, sentence the accused to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000.00. In default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The accused, who is on bail, shall surrender himself to his bail bonds before the trial Court within a period of four weeks from today to receive the sentence imposed upon him by this Court.