Judgment :- Heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and also the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. This revision is filed against the conviction and sentence of the petitioner/accused of the offence under Section 477-A IPC. The petitioner was tried by the trial Court for the offences under Sections 408, 420, 468, 471 and 477-A IPC. The trial Court while acquitting him of the offence under Section 408 IPC, convicted him of the offences under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 477-A IPC and passed different sentences. In appeal by the petitioner, the appellate Court acquitted him of the offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC, but confirmed the conviction for the offence under Section 477-A IPC passed by the trial Court sentencing the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. The facts, which gave rise to this prosecution, were that it was alleged that the petitioner was a Government servant and working as a Senior Assistant at Rani Chandramathi Devi Hospital, Visakhapatnam from the year 1985. P.W.1, Dr.C.Laxminarayana, was the Superintendent of the Hospital at the relevant point of time. The petitioner put up a bill for Rs.73,054/- on 14-02-1991 before P.W.1, obtained his signatures and presented the same bill before the District Treasury, Visakhapatnam. The treasury authorities raised objections and enquired from the Superintendent whether the bill sought to be encashed was entered in the relevant books. On verification, it was found that two bills encashed were not found in the relevant registers. Therefore, the petitioner was served with a memo to handover the cash of Rs.73,054/-. The petitioner paid the amount and it was remitted to the treasury. The petitioner had drawn the amount as if it had to be paid to three retired employees. P.W.1 gave a report to the Audit party and the Audit party verified the records of the Hospital and found that the petitioner had misappropriated an amount of Rs.6, 39,066.10 ps by drawing on several occasions. The appellate Court after going through the evidence found that no offence was made out under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC. P.W.1 gave a report to the Audit party and the Audit party verified the records of the Hospital and found that the petitioner had misappropriated an amount of Rs.6, 39,066.10 ps by drawing on several occasions. The appellate Court after going through the evidence found that no offence was made out under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC. It is also pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that originally, there was no charge for the offence under Section 477-A IPC, but the charge was framed only after the examination of the petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C and at the time of arguments and no opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend himself against the charge under Section 477-A IPC. He also contends that once the petitioner was acquitted of the charges under Sections 408, 420, 468 and 471 IPC, he could not be convicted of the offence under Section 477-A IPC because the element of fraud was the important ingredient in the offences in which the petitioner was acquitted and in the offences in which he was convicted. In this connection, a reference is, particularly, made to Sections 420 and 471 IPC. Section 420 IPC reads as under- “420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property-Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.” Section 471 IPC reads as under- “471. Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record- Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document or electronic record which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document or electronic record, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document or electronic record.” Section 477-A IPC reads as under- “477-A. Falsification of accounts- Whoever, being a clerk, officer or servant, or employed or acting in the capacity of a clerk, officer or servant, willfully and with intent to defraud, destroys, alters, mutilates or falsifies any book, electronic record, paper, writing, valuable security or account which belongs to or is in the possession of his employer, or has been received by him for or on behalf of his employer, or willfully, and with intent to defraud, makes or abets the making of any false entry in, or omits or alters or abets the omission or alteration of any material particular from or in, any such book, electronic records, paper, writing, valuable security or account, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both. Explanation- It shall be sufficient in any charge under this Section to allege a general intent to defraud without knowing any particular person intended to be defrauded or specifying any particular sum of money intended to be the subject of the fraud, or any particular day on which the offence was committed” Section 477-A IPC has three ingredients. 1. That at the relevant point of time, the accused should be a clerk or officer or servant or acting in that capacity; 2. That he should destroy, alter, mutilate or falsify any book, electronic record, paper, writing, valuable security or account, which belongs to or was in the possession of his employer and 3. The act should have been done willfully and with an intention to defraud. Though there is some evidence on record that the petitioner had done the acts willfully, but there is nothing on record to show that the acts were done with an intention to defraud. The act should have been done willfully and with an intention to defraud. Though there is some evidence on record that the petitioner had done the acts willfully, but there is nothing on record to show that the acts were done with an intention to defraud. Even on evidence the amounts, which were returned, were found in the safe of P.W.1 and were always in his custody and on a question of law when the petitioner was acquitted of the offences under Sections 420 and 471 IPC that would mean that there was no intention to defraud. Since this important ingredient of Section 477-A IPC was not proved, he could not have been convicted under this Section. The learned Public Prosecutor, however, submits that Section 477-A IPC has two elements. 1. that there should be an element of fraud and 2. There should be an injury and since the injury was caused, therefore, the intention to defraud would be implied. In this connection, he relies on a judgment of the Supreme Court in S. Harnam Singh v. The State (Delhi Admn.) (AIR 1976 Supreme Court 2140). The Supreme Court considered the import of Section 477-A IPC in paras 17 and 18 of the judgment, which read as under- 17. The existence of the third ingredient has been the subject of serious controversy. The question is: Did the appellant make these entries “willfully and with intent to defraud”? 18. “Willfully” as used in Section 477-A means “intentionally” or “deliberately”. There can be no difficulty in holding that these entries were made by the appellant ‘willfully’. The appellant must have been aware that the Divisional Superintendent had by an order prohibited the booking of this class of goods via Barabanki from and on January 11, 1967. But from the mere fact that these entries were made ‘willfully’, it does not necessarily follow that he did so “with intent to defraud” within the meaning of Section 477-A, Penal Code. The Code does not contain any precise and specific definition of the words “intent to defraud”. However, it has been settled by a catena of authorities that “intent to defraud” contains two elements viz., deceit and injury. The Code does not contain any precise and specific definition of the words “intent to defraud”. However, it has been settled by a catena of authorities that “intent to defraud” contains two elements viz., deceit and injury. A person is said to deceive another when by practicing “suggestio falsi” or “suppressioveri” or both he intentionally induces another to believe a thing to be true, which he knows to be false or does not believe to be true. ‘Injury’ has been defined in Section 44 of the Code as denoting “any harm whatever illegally caused to any person, in body, mind, reputation or property.” The principles laid down by the Supreme Court are that there should be a willful act of an accused with an intention to defraud. So both elements must be present and in other words it would mean that the act should be a willful act and should also be done with an intention to defraud. While trying to define “intent to defraud”, the Court noted that it contains two elements, deceit and injury. There is no doubt that to convict a person under Section 477-A IPC, the prosecution has to prove that there was a willful act, which had been made with an intent to defraud and while proving “intention to defraud” the prosecution has to further prove two elements that the act was an act of deceit and it had caused an injury. In the present case, there may be an injury, but there is no deceit. For these reasons, I allow the Criminal Revision Case. The conviction and the sentence passed by the trial Court against the petitioner for the offence under Section 477-A IPC, as upheld by the appellate Court, is set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the same. As the petitioner is already on bail, his bail bonds are revoked. The fine amount, if paid, shall be refunded to him.