JUDGMENT Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record. 2. Controversy involved in this revision is that the Special Judge (CBI), Uttaranchal, Dehradun vide the impugned order dated 29.3.2005 discharged the accused Ram Prakash Sharma from the offence of Section 409 IPC and found the case for levelling the charges only for the offences under Section 168 IPC read with Section 13(2)/13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, while the chargesheet was submitted by the CBI against Ram Prakash Sharma for all those offences. 3. Now, the CBI has agitated in this revision that the learned Special Judge was not justified in passing the impugned order of discharge from the offence of Section 409 IPC. 4. I have gone through the impugned order as well as the contents of the chargesheet. Certainly, the learned Special Judge (CBI) was not correct in holding that after obtaining of the bills in the name of the society and not entering the same into any register of the society does not ipso facto shows that the accused has committed any offence of criminal breach of trust, while the chargesheet entails 26 bills of different worth which shows that these were issued in favour of different parties. But these bills were not accounted in the concerned register. The amount received by him was not deposited in the bank account of the society. So, apparently, it was criminal breach of trust of the money, which was entrusted to him by different purchasers which he was bound to deposit in the bank account of the society. The learned trial court was certainly misconceived in the interpretation of Section 168 IPC because that envisages that if a Government Servant carries any trade or profession without being legally bound as such public servant to do so, then it is covered by Section 168 IPC. 5. Accused Ram Prakash Sharma was a public servant and he was not doing this trade illegally. He was engaged under the rules and bylaws of the society for the benefit of its members, all of whom were the public servants of the railways. Section 168 IPC envisages in a different context and that comes into play only when a public servant not being authorized so, engages himself in a trade for his personal gains otherwise than his official duties. 6. Section 168 IPC envisages in a different context and that comes into play only when a public servant not being authorized so, engages himself in a trade for his personal gains otherwise than his official duties. 6. In the instant controversy, Ram Prakash Sharma was deputed as Secretary of society to run its business and the members of the society were the beneficiaries of the same. So, in fact, offence of Section 168 IPC is not attracted at all. Rather, it is a case of Section 409 IPC. 7. Learned Counsel for the accused relied upon a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kailash Kumar Sanwatia v. State of Bihar & Another, reported in AIR 2003 SC 3714. But this precedent is not applicable in the present controversy because in that case money was entrusted to the bank cashier by a consumer for preparation of the draft, but the said money was found missing from the cash counter of the bank and the prosecution was not raising any allegation that the money was taken away either by the cashier or any other persons. In that eventuality, the Hon’ble Apex Court did not find it an appropriate case under Section 409 IPC. But here, the clear cut allegation is that the money received by Ram Prakash Sharma from so many purchasers were not accounted in the register and were also not deposited in the bank account of the society, but the same got misappropriated by him for his own personal gain. 8. For the reasons stated above, the revision has force and it is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, the revision is allowed. Impugned order dated 29.3.2005, passed by the Special Judge, Anti Corruption (CBI), Uttaranchal, Dehradun in Criminal Case No. 3/04, CBI v. Ram Prakash Sharma, is hereby quashed. Learned Special Judge is directed to frame the charge under Section 409 IPC against the accused and then proceed with the trial against him. 9. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that for the rest of the offences, the trial is at the verge of completion. However, this factor will not hamper the levelling of the charge under Section 409 IPC against the accused Ram Prakash Sharma and thereafter opportunity to the prosecution to prove the same. 9. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that for the rest of the offences, the trial is at the verge of completion. However, this factor will not hamper the levelling of the charge under Section 409 IPC against the accused Ram Prakash Sharma and thereafter opportunity to the prosecution to prove the same. However, it is made clear that any observation made by this Court shall not prejudice the trial against the accused. 10. Let copy of this judgment and order be sent to the trial court for its compliance. Lower court record be sent back.