Judgment R.L.Anand, J. 1. This is a criminal revision and has been directed against the judgment dated 11.9.1987, passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar who maintained the conviction of the petitioner Siri Krishan under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The brief facts of the case are that one Shah Mandal alias Mandal son of Nathu, resident of village Sandlana was challaned by the police of Narnaund in case FIR No. 172, dated 5.12.1977 regarding his being possessed of a revolver .38 bore, 18 live cartridges of 9 mm, 12 live cartridges of .12 bore and eight empties which were allegedly got recovered by him in pursuance of the disclosure statement made by him. The arm and ammunition of that case were deposited in the Malkhana. During trial of the case against the Shah Mandal, the arm and ammunition were found missing from Hansi Malkhana of which present petitioner was the Moharrir incharge. On the basis of the evidence produced, Shah Mandal got an order of acquittal on 15.1.1981 from the Court then presided over by Shri G.L. Goel, Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hansi. Since the case property of the case under the Arms Act against Shah Mandal was not produced in the Court at the time of trial and since it was reported to be missing from the Malkhana, the Assistant District Attorney Hansi lodged the report Ex.PA with the police upon which formal FIR Ex.PA/1 was recorded by S.I. Jagdish Chander. The investigations of the case were taken in hand. The challan against the petitioner was presented. 3. The copies of the documents were supplied to the accused and charge under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against him. Accused pleaded not guilty of the charge and claimed a trial. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses. The statment of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he denied all the allegations. He even denied being posted as Moharrir of Malkhana during the relevant time. In his defence, he examined D.W.1. Jai Kishan and D.W.2 ASI Banwari Lal. 5. The learned Magistrate believed the story of the prosecution and vide judgment and order dated 21.2.1986 and 22.2.1986 convicted the petitioner under Section 409 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. In his defence, he examined D.W.1. Jai Kishan and D.W.2 ASI Banwari Lal. 5. The learned Magistrate believed the story of the prosecution and vide judgment and order dated 21.2.1986 and 22.2.1986 convicted the petitioner under Section 409 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine he was ordered to undergo further R.I. for three months. 6. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of learned Magistrate, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar who dismissed the appeal by maintaining conviction and sentence of the petitioner for the reasons given in paras No. 8 to 15 of the judgment. Paras No. 8 to 15 of the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar read as under :- "8. Shri G.L. Goel appeared as a Court witness on 6.5.1987. Thereafter, supplementary statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. In that statement, the accused admitted that he had appeared before Shri G.L. Goel, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hansi on 17.12.1979 when the Court was hearing the State case against Shah Mandal under Section 25 of the Arms Act vide FIR No. 172, dated 5.11.1997 of P.S. Narnaund, that the case property i.e. revolver and the ammunition had not been produced in the Court and that he had appeared in the Court and requested for time being given to him for verifying about the case property being in the Malkhana and also to verify whether the case property was a pistol or a revolver. He had nothing else to say and he did not want to produce any further evidence in his defence. 9. I have heard Shri J.S. Malhi, Advocate for the appellant and Shri M.B. Jain, P.P. for the State and with their help I have minutely gone through the evidence available on the record. 10. The first argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned trial Magistrate had failed to discuss much less appreciate the evidence produced in defence and, therefore, the accused was entitled to an order of acquittal. In support of his argument, he placed reliance on Beant and others v. The State of Punjab, 1985(2) C.L.R. 335. 10. The first argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned trial Magistrate had failed to discuss much less appreciate the evidence produced in defence and, therefore, the accused was entitled to an order of acquittal. In support of his argument, he placed reliance on Beant and others v. The State of Punjab, 1985(2) C.L.R. 335. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is correct so far as the factum of non- discussion of the defence evidence is concerned and for that purpose I have gone through the evidence produced in defence. D.W.1 Jai Kishan had simply produced the file of the Criminal Case No. 88-2 of 1981 State v. Siri Kishan under Section 409 IPC. D.W.2 Banwari Lal ASI was examined but he had nothing to say about this case. He deposed about his having recorded the statement of accused Siri Kishan in case FIR Nos. 257 dated 17.10.1980 under Section 409 IPC which was under investigation by him. Therefore, Banwari Lal has not uttered even a single word to exculpate the accused in this case. Ex.D.1 is a certified copy of the statement made by H.C. Rati Ram in still another case against the accused under Section 409 IPC registered in Police Station City, Hansi, vide FIR No. 75 dated 17.4.1981 and that statement has also not in any way advanced the defence version. Therefore, the defence evidence although not discussed by the learned trial Court is of no effect in this case. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant is right in submitting that the accused can be convicted in this case only if it is proved that he had been entrusted with some property in the discharge of his public duties and that he has criminally misappropriated the same. Shri Malhi submitted that no entrustment of the arm and ammunition has been proved in this case. This argument is, however, without any merit. Initially, after the recovery of the arm/ammunition had been effected from Shah Mandal in the case registered against him, S.I. Phool Singh had deposited the cases property in the Malkhana of which Malkhana, the present accused Siri Krishan became the Incharge subsequently. P.W.5 Shiv Lal in his examination-in-chief has specifically stated that he had handed over the case property to this accused vide road certificate 37/78 (Ex.P.C.). It bears the signatures of the accused. P.W.5 Shiv Lal in his examination-in-chief has specifically stated that he had handed over the case property to this accused vide road certificate 37/78 (Ex.P.C.). It bears the signatures of the accused. The accused has not disputed his signatures on Ex.PC. Shiv Lal was cross- examined on the point of entrustment at length and he repeatedly stated that he had handed over the case property to the accused Siri Krishan and thus no ambiguity was left out regarding the entrustment of arm and ammunition to the accused. Once entrustment is proved, the onus is on the accused to show that he had discharged the entrustment. It is not his case that he had handed over the case property to his successor or to somebody else. his successor P.W.8 Rati Ram has come in the witness box to say that he had taken over charge from the accused and that the list of articles found short was prepared and the arms and ammunition of the case against Shah Mandal is mentioned in that list. 12. Much stress was laid by the learned counsel for the appellant that the accused had been charged in respect of the criminal misappropriation of a revolver and other cartridges/empties but in Shah Mandals case it was a pistol which had been produced before the Court. In this regard, he referred to the statement of P.W.14 Shri G.L. Goel who was also recalled as a Court witness by my learned predecessor. The case property is not verified by the Court before it is exhibited. For a layman, it is difficult to distinguished between a pistol and a revolver. Therefore, even if by slip of tongue Shri G.L. Goel had deposed about the production of a pistol before him at the time of trial of the case State v. Shah Mandal, it is not going to benefit the accused in any way. The accused has not accounted for even a pistol allegedly produced in the Court. 12A. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Malkhana in which the case property had been kept was having more than one key and since the arm and ammunition were accessible to all and sundry, the accused cannot be held liable. Janeshwar Dass Aggarwal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1981 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 661, was referred to in this regard. The argument is bereft of any merit. Janeshwar Dass Aggarwal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1981 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 661, was referred to in this regard. The argument is bereft of any merit. Once the arm and ammunition had been entrusted to accused, he cannot be heard saying that the malkhana was having more than one key. He was to discharge the entrustment. 13. Shri Malhi has further stated that the prosecution has not been able to prove dishonest intention of the accused in the present case and, therefore, the accused was entitled to acquittal. Sardar Singh v. State of Haryana, 1977 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 121, was referred to. The argument has to be rejected. Dishonest intention cannot be proved like any other material thing. It is hidden in the mind of the accused and the prosecution can only bring circumstances from which inference of dishonest intention has to be taken and in the present case those circumstances have been brought on the record because for misappropriating that arm and ammunition, the accused has gained doubly firstly on account of the conduct of the accused, Shah Mandal had been acquitted of the charge regarding possession of arm and ammunition and secondly, Webly Scott revolver can fetch more than Rs. 20,000/- in the open market. These circumstances in themselves are sufficient to infer dishonest intention of the accused. 14. Lastly Shri Malhi has submitted that the accused was a public servant at the relevant time and, therefore, without sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. the prosecution against him could not have been launched. Reference was made to Ram Kishan v. The State of Haryana, 1981 C.L.R. 624. This argument, however, cannot be accepted firstly because the act of criminal misappropriation cannot be said to be part of duty of public servant and secondly the accused was removable from his office without the sanction of the State Government. Since he was only a constable in the police department his service could be terminated by Senior Superintendent of Police through whom this case was got registered. A direct authority on the point is Kirpal Singh son of Bachan Singh, resident of Gali No. 7, Nai Abadi, Karam Pur v. The State of Punjab, 1984(1) R.C.C. 595. Since he was only a constable in the police department his service could be terminated by Senior Superintendent of Police through whom this case was got registered. A direct authority on the point is Kirpal Singh son of Bachan Singh, resident of Gali No. 7, Nai Abadi, Karam Pur v. The State of Punjab, 1984(1) R.C.C. 595. It was held : "Defalcation or misappropriation of the property entrusted to a public servant is no part of his duties and in doing so he is not acting in the discharge of his duties and, therefore, the question of prior sanction for prosecution does not arise." 15. After going through the entire evidence available on the file, I am satisfied that the learned trial Court was right in handing down the order of conviction against the accused." 7. In the manner, the present revision has been filed by the petitioner. 8. I have heard Shri S.P.S. Parmar, Deputy District Attorney appearing on behalf of the respondent and have gone through the grounds of revision and am satisfied that the petitioner has been rightly convicted because at the relevant time he was Munshi and he was Incharge of the Malkhana and, therefore, the case property of the earlier case was in his custody and it was his duty to maintain it properly and to produce it at the relevant time. I also repel the argument of the petitioner as contained in the grounds of revision that he could not be prosecuted without the sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The misappropriation of the property, entrusted to a public servant, is no part of his duties and if such officer/official misappropriates the property, he does not discharge the duties in a public capacity. The petitioner has not been able to explain under what circumstances the case property was found missing from the Malkhana. 9. With regard to the sentence aspect, I am of the view that ends of justice will suffice if the substantive sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the one already undergone because the petitioner must have lost the job on account of his conviction and the petitioner is also suffering the agony of this case since 1980 as the FIR in this case was registered on 5.2.1980. I order accordingly.