D. G. KARIA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal under Sec. 378 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated May 31, 1988, rendered in Criminal Case No. 402 of 1987 whereby the learned Chief judicial Magistrate, Amreli acquitted the respondent-accused for the offence under secs. 406, 409 and 420 of Indian Penal Code. ( 2 ) THE respondent-accused was the Nazir in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior division) at Amreli, at the relevant time. He made an application to covert his earned Leave for 30 days, and accordingly, the bill was prepared for payment of rs. 1,247-90. Accordingly, the respondent was paid the said amount for surrendering his leave for 30 days for the period from January 17, 1985 to February 15, 1985. Mr. M. P. Bhatt, Assistant Judge, Amreli by his order dated January 19, 1985 at exh. 15 sanctioned the said amount of bill for the year 1985. It is not in dispute that vide bill, Exh. 17, the respondent was paid Rs. 1,247-90 for his Earned Leave being converted for the year 1985. The respondent by his application dated August 1, 1986, at Exh. 26, again applied to convert his Earned Leave for the period from august 1, 1986 to August 30, 1986, for 30 days for cash amount. By order dated august 2, 1986, at Exh. 27, the said conversion of leave for cash payment was sanctioned and accordingly, the bill Exh. 28 was prepared. Consequently, the respondent was paid Rs. 1,490-40 for the Earned Leave for the aforesaid period from August 1, 1986 to August 30, 1986 by cash payment. According to the rules, for a block of two years, an employee was entitled for cash payment against his converted leave for 30 days for each block. Since the respondent has obtained cash payment for his converted leave for the year 1985, he was not entitled for such second conversion in 1986. However, he made the application Exh. 26 for the year 1986 to convert his leave for cash payment in the month of August, 1986 and got the payment for surrendering the Earned Leave. On the basis of this fact and allegation, a complaint was lodged for commission of the offences punishable under Secs. However, he made the application Exh. 26 for the year 1986 to convert his leave for cash payment in the month of August, 1986 and got the payment for surrendering the Earned Leave. On the basis of this fact and allegation, a complaint was lodged for commission of the offences punishable under Secs. 406, 409 and 420 of I. P. C. ( 3 ) IT was the defence of the respondent-accused that he did not intend to misappropriate nor he has converted any amount to his own use or committed offence of criminal breach of trust nor he intended to induce the State dishonestly for delivery of the said sum of Earned Leave for the subsequent or second year of 1986. The respondent was acquitted on ground of loss of memory and negligence or carelessness and that he might have applied for cash payment of his converted leave for the year 1986 through oversight or inadvertently. ( 4 ) THE learned Magistrate having recorded the evidence of prosecution witnesses and on appreciation thereof and other documentary evidence on record and materials, came to the conclusion that the offences under Secs. 406, 409 and 420 of I. P. C. were not established against the accused person as no deliberate and dishonest intention can be attributed to the respondent in applying for conversion of Earned leave for the subsequent year of 1986. In this view of the matter, the learned magistrate ordered the acquittal of the respondent-accused for the offences for which he was charged. ( 5 ) MR. M. A. Bukhari, learned A. P. P. appearing for the appellant-State has taken me through the relevant evidence and the judgment under appeal. In the submission of Mr. Bukhari, as per the documentary evidence on record, it was clearly established that the respondent though not entitled for cash payment for his earned Leave of 30 days, made the application Exh. 26 and got payment for the block of 1986 and thus, the respondent should have been held guilty for the offences under Secs. 406, 409 and 420 of I. P. C. ( 6 ) CONSIDERING the evidence and other materials on record, I am unable to accept the contention canvassed on behalf of the appellant-State. In order to bring home the charge of criminal breach of trust for the offences under Secs. 406, 409 and 420 of I. P. C. ( 6 ) CONSIDERING the evidence and other materials on record, I am unable to accept the contention canvassed on behalf of the appellant-State. In order to bring home the charge of criminal breach of trust for the offences under Secs. 406 and 409 of I. P. C. the basic ingredient for the offence of the criminal breach of trust, is that the property must be entrusted to the person who is said to have committed criminal breach of trust in respect thereof, and such person should have dominion of such property. Section 405 of I. P. C. requires a separate and specific agreement or arrangment for entrustment. In the facts of the present case, by no stretch of reasoning, there has been an element of entrustment. In the present case, there is no allegation with regard to entrustment and the misappropriation of the entrusted funds. The prosecution has neither alleged nor proved factum of entrustment and embezzlement of the entrusted article or funds to prove the offence under Sec. 409 of the Penal Code. In the facts of the case, it cannot be said that the respondentemployee had a dominion on the amount in respect of which the bill was prepared and passed for payment of his converted Earned Leave. ( 7 ) IN the case of Janeshwar Das Aggarwal v. State of U. P. , AIR 1981 SC 1646 , the Supreme Court in dealing with the essentials for the offence of Sec. 409 of I. P. C. held that where in a case though entrustment of certain articles in open godown was proved but there was no evidence either direct or circumstantial, to show that the accused had misappropriated any of the articles in the godowns, the accused could not be presumed to have misappropriated articles, merely on the ground that he failed to give any explanation for the shortage and his conviction would not be sustained. In the instant case also, the factum of entrustment and embezzlement are missing. ( 8 ) AS regards offence under Sec. 420 of I. P. C. , there is no evidence or other material on record to show that the respondent-accused dishonestly induced any of his superior officers to prepare and present the bill and thereby cheated any official so as to get the payment of the bill. ( 8 ) AS regards offence under Sec. 420 of I. P. C. , there is no evidence or other material on record to show that the respondent-accused dishonestly induced any of his superior officers to prepare and present the bill and thereby cheated any official so as to get the payment of the bill. In other words, the ingredients of inducement and dishonesty by causing wrongful gain to the employee or wrongful loss to the state by any deliberate action is absent. In the entire process of preparing and presenting the subsequent or second bill for the year 1986, no intention of inducement and dishonesty can be attributed to the respondent-employee. In the facts of the case, there is no cheating. In my view, having regard to the facts, all the ingredients for offence under Sec. 406, 409 and 420 are not brought out so as to prove the guilt of the respondent. ( 9 ) IN the case of R. S. Nayak v. A. R. Antulay, reported in 1986 (2) SCC 716 , the Supreme Court has enumerated the following ingredients of cheating so as to constitute the offences under Sec. 420 of I. P. C. : (i) there should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him; (ii) (a) the person so induced should be intentionally induced to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or (b) the person so induced should be intentionally deceived to do or to omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and (iii) in cases covered by the second part of (ii), the act or omission should be one which caused or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind reputation or property. ( 10 ) IN the present case, the allegation is that the respondent though not entitled to convert his Earned Leave for cash payment, in 1986, did so for the block of said year 1986 and thereby, committed an offence of cheating under Sec. 420 of i. P. C. It is true that by the documentary evidence on record (Order Exh. 27, sanctioning the second bill by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) on 2-8-1986, the bill Exh. 28 and the entry in the service book of the employee at Exh. 27, sanctioning the second bill by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) on 2-8-1986, the bill Exh. 28 and the entry in the service book of the employee at Exh. 30), the respondent has undoubtedly converted his Earned Leave for 30 days for cash payment, and in fact, got the payment therefor. However, the question is was it by way of any dishonest intention or inducement for pocketing the amount for his earned Leave ? The learned Magistrate has rightly recorded that the impugned action of the respondent might be by negligence or carelessness and that his memory might have failed in regard to his subsequent claim of conversion of earned Leave for the year 1986. By such inadvertent action, essential ingredients to constitute the offences of Sec. 406, 409 and 420, are not established. Admittedly, the respondent had due leave in his credit in the leave account. Accordingly, the evidence recorded by the learned Magistrate in this connection in the judgment cannot be faulted with. ( 11 ) IN the above premises, there is no merit in the appeal and the appeal is dismissed. .