JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. C. S. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2. 2. This application has been directed against the judgment dated 24.09.1999 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro at Chas in Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 1996 whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred against the judgment dated 19.01.1995 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro at Chas in Complaint Case No. 30 of 1984 has been dismissed and the same has been affirmed. 3. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no entrustment could be gathered from the complaint filed so as to invite an offence under Section 408 of Cr.P.C. It has been stated that the petitioner was appointed as a Daftari and in fact embezzlement has been made by the Principal of the School and the petitioner has been made a scapegoat. He by way of alternative argument further submits that petitioner has sufficiently been punished as he has faced the rigors of the prosecution case from 1984 and out of punishment of one year, he had remained in custody for 2 and half months. He also submits that complainant was never examined which vitiates the prosecution case and which fact has not properly been appreciated by the learned trial court as well as by the learned appellate court. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 vehemently opposed the prayer and has stated that the petitioner was working as a Clerk cum Cashier in the school and has defalcated a huge amount of money which was substantiated in course of the investigation and also during trial 3 prosecution witnesses have supported the case. 5. Submissions made by the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has been echoed by Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned A.P.P. 6. It appears from the complaint case instituted that from 06.02.1981 to 02.09.1983, the petitioner being the Clerk cum Cashier of D.A.V. School has collected tuition fees, but during the said period he granted receipts and made entry of the same in the ledger book, but did not deposit it in the bank and therefore, it was concluded that an amount of Rs. 26,941/- has been misappropriated by the petitioner. In course of trial, 3 witnesses were examined on behalf of complainant. 26,941/- has been misappropriated by the petitioner. In course of trial, 3 witnesses were examined on behalf of complainant. P.W. 1 – Navin Chandra is the Assistant Teacher in D.A.V. School Sector IV and was also member of the audit committee. This witness has stated that during the period in which defalcation has been made, the petitioner was working as an Office Incharge and used to maintain the books of accounts. P.W. 2 – Kamal Kumar Kakkar is the founder member and member of the local managing committee of the D.A.V. School who has stated about the petitioner having worked as a Cashier and was responsible for collecting fees and depositing the same in the UCO bank, Sector IV. P.W. 3 – Md. Loyik Kujama was the Officer Superintendent of the said school who has also stated in similar terms as that of the other witnesses. This witness has proved certain documents which has been marked as Exhibit. It has been stated by him that the account was audited and subsequently it was detected that an amount of Rs. 26,941/- was misappropriated by the petitioner. Although complainant was not examined, but the evidence of the 3 witnesses sufficiently goes to prove that the petitioner being the Clerk cum Cashier of the D.A.V. School for the period 06.02.1981 to 02.09.1983 was responsible for collection of the fees and depositing the same in the bank. Such circumstances thus negates the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no entrustment of property so as to constitute an offence under Section 408 of I.P.C. The learned trial court on proper appreciation of the materials on record has rightly convicted the petitioners for the offence under Section 408 of I.P.C. while acquitting him for the offence punishable under Sections 420 & 468 of I.P.C. The learned appellate court has also affirmed the order passed by the learned trial court. 7. There being no illegality committed by either of the courts below, the impugned judgment of conviction does not deserve interference and accordingly, the same is hereby affirmed. 8. 7. There being no illegality committed by either of the courts below, the impugned judgment of conviction does not deserve interference and accordingly, the same is hereby affirmed. 8. However, with respect to the sentence which has been awarded to the petitioner of one year Rigorous Imprisonment is concerned, since the petitioner is facing rigors of the prosecution case since last more than 3 decades and has also suffered incarceration for a period of 2 and half months, the sentence awarded to the petitioner is therefore, modified to the period already undergone. 9. This application is dismissed with the aforesaid modification in the sentence.