Order.- The petitioner in this case was convicted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Alwaye, for offences under sections 409 and 477-A, Indian Penal Code, and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 2 months under section 409 and to rigorous imprisonment for 1 month under section 477-A, Indian Penal Code. The accused was a ‘Muthalpidi’ or agent of Thiruvarppu Kizhakke Madom for collecting rents due to the Madom from the tenants. In his capacity as the agent he was supplied with printed receipt books containing both receipts and duplicates from which the accused has to issue receipts to the tenants and preserve the duplicates. The duplicates are underneath each receipt and are meant to be carbon copies of the original. The receipts are serially numbered. Exhibit P-1 is one of such receipt books. There is no dispute that the receipt was entrusted to the accused. The accused has also to maintain a Nalvazhi account and Exhibit P-3 is the Nalvazhi book. On 22nd October, 1959, P.W. 2, a tenant of the Madom, paid the accused 9 paras, 5 edangazhies and 8 veesoms of paddy and Rs. 3.70 nP. in cash on account of the rent due to the Madom. The accused is seen to have issued a receipt Exhibit P-2 from Exhibit P-1 receipt book. It is dated 22nd October, 1959. This amount was not brought into the Nalvazhi account Exhibit P-3 till 25th November, 1959 and on that date what is seen to have been entered is a receipt of a sum of Rs. 21.60 nP. calculating paddy value at Re. 1-14 as and adding Rs. 3.70 nP.. which had been paid in cash. Exhibit P-3 (A) in Exhibit P-3 is the relevant entry. Exhibit P-2 (a) is the duplicate receipt which bears the date 26th November, 1959, as against Exhibit P-2 which is, dated 22nd October, 1959. Instead of writing the quantity of paddy received and the cash received separately the accused entered the money value of the paddy as in Exhibit P-3 (a). The prosecution case is that the accused misappropriated the paddy and the money Between 22nd October, 1959 and 25th November, 1959 and falsified the entries in the duplicate Exhibit P-2 (a) and Nalvazhi. There was another head of charge which was found against. The prosecution case is that the accused misappropriated the paddy and the money Between 22nd October, 1959 and 25th November, 1959 and falsified the entries in the duplicate Exhibit P-2 (a) and Nalvazhi. There was another head of charge which was found against. The case of the accused was that rent was paid by the tenants not in paddy but in money and about the discrepancy in the dates he stated that he does not remember the details. He would, however, say that a false case has been filed against him because of enmity between him and P.W. 1. The case of the accused that he had been authorised to collect rent at the rate of Re. 1-14 a para has been accepted by the learned Magistrate, but he is found guilty of temporary misappropriation in that having received the paddy or the money on 22nd October, 1959, he failed to credit the amount in the accounts till 25th November 1959 and during the period converted the money to his own use. Learned Counsel appearing for the accused strenuously contended that there is no rule enjoining the accused to enter the amount received on the very same day it is received, that the accused is the person who had to keep the collections with him and that mere retention of money would not amount to misappropriation. Learned Sessions Judge has referred to the decision in Krishnan Kumar v. Union of India1. As stated there it is not necessary or possible in every case to prove in what precise manner the accused person has dealt with or misappropriated the goods of his master. The question is one of intention and not a matter of direct proof but giving a false account of what he has done with the goods received by him may be treated as a strong circumstance against him. In the case of a servant charged with misappropriating the goods of his master the elements of criminal offence of misappropriation will be established if the prosecution proves that the servant received the goods, that he was under a duty to account to his master and had not done so. If the failure to account was due to an accidental loss then the facts being within the servant’s knowledge it is for him to explain the loss. If the failure to account was due to an accidental loss then the facts being within the servant’s knowledge it is for him to explain the loss. It is not the law of this country that the prosecution has to eliminate all possible defences or circumstances which may exonerate him. If these facts are within the knowledge of the accused then he has to prove them Of course, the prosecution has to establish a prima facie case in the first instance. It is not enough to establish facts which give rise to a suspicion and then by reason of section 106 of the Evidence Act to throw the onus on him to prove his innocence. Here in this case the intention to falsify and misappropriate is evident. He received on 22nd October, 1959, paddy, in kind or its equivalent value in cash. It was his duty as the agent of the Madom to enter the receipts in the day to-day accounts of the Madom. He has failed to do so. The dishonest intention is proved, because in the receipt granted to the tenant he has shown the date of receipt as 22nd October, 1959, but did not fill up the duplicate receipt. Later in the duplicate receipt which alone will be there to check up the accounts, he showed the date of receipt as 25th November, 1959 and he entered the receipt of the amount in the Nalvazhi on that day. I could have understood the case of receipts being granted on the same date, but failure to bring it into account on that day. It would then have been open to the accused to contend that there is only mere retention and failure to enter was due to forgetfulness. Here intention to misappropriate can be inferred from the fact that the accused granted the receipt without the duplicate being filled in. If under the law it is not necessary or possible for the prosecution to prove the manner in which the goods have been misappropriated and the question is only one of intention the circumstances which have been set out do show that the appellant in what he has done or omitted to do was moved by a guilty mind. In my opinion the petitioner has been rightly convicted by the Courts below. The sentence cannot be said to be excessive. In my opinion the petitioner has been rightly convicted by the Courts below. The sentence cannot be said to be excessive. The result is the conviction and the sentence are confirmed and the Revision Petition is dismissed. M.C.M. ------- Petition dismissed.