JUDGMENT : Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. 1. This revision application is directed against the judgment dated 29.03.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Criminal Appeal No. 17/2019 whereby the appellate court has partly allowed and partly dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and has also modified the sentence passed under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The sentence under Section 471 of IPC was reduced to 04 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and sentence under Section 406 of IPC was not interference with and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The learned appellate court has acquitted the petitioner from the charges under Sections 467 and 468 of IPC. 2. The petitioner was charged for offence under Sections 406, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of an FIR and faced Trial under the aforesaid sections being G.R. Case No. 454/2010 (T.R. No. 89/2019). The FIR was filed on 20.08.2010. The learned trial Court had convicted the petitioner for offence under Sections 406, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 03 years for offence under Section 406 of IPC; rigorous imprisonment for 05 years for offence under Section 467 with fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default sentence; rigorous imprisonment for 05 years for offence under Section 468 of IPC with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default sentence and rigorous imprisonment for 05 years under Section 471 of IPC with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default sentence and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. The learned trial court further assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 13,79,514/- and accordingly directed for payment of Rs. 10,00,000/- to N.I.M.E Co-operative Store Limited as compensation under Section 353 of Cr.P.C. So far as compensation amount is concerned, the appellate court recorded that an amount of Rs. 4,75,000/- was paid by way of bank draft to N.I.M.E. Co-operative Store Limited in terms of the direction by this Court at the time of grant of anticipatory bail being A.B.A. No. 4767/2010 vide order dated 14.02.2011 and accordingly the said amount was directed to be adjusted against the compensation amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- awarded by the learned trial court and the remaining amount of Rs. 5,25,000/- was directed to be paid as compensation. 10,00,000/- awarded by the learned trial court and the remaining amount of Rs. 5,25,000/- was directed to be paid as compensation. Arguments on behalf of the petitioner 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned judgments submitted that the learned courts have not considered the evidences properly as there were many other persons who were involved in the alleged transactions, but the petitioner was isolated and he faced the trial before the learned trial court. The learned counsel submitted that there was no signature of the petitioner on various documents which were exhibited, rather the trial court recorded that Exhibits- 9, 9/2, 9/4, 9/5 and 9/6 produced by the prosecution were in the writing of the petitioner in the store register and other exhibits which were counter-foils were written by other staffs of the store on the instructions of the petitioner. The learned counsel also submitted that the signatures of the petitioner were also not sent for verification through expert. 5. The learned counsel further submitted that the appellate court while upholding the conviction of the petitioner has not considered the aforesaid aspects of the matter properly and therefore, the judgment of the appellate court upholding the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 406 and 471 of IPC calls for interference. 6. On the point of sentence, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the conviction under Section 471 of IPC has to be seen with Section 465 of the IPC and the maximum punishment prescribed under Section 465 of IPC is only two years, but the appellate court though has reduced the punishment, but has still exceeded the prescribed punishment by giving the punishment of R.I. for 04 years instead of R.I. for 02 years and therefore the sentence under Section 471 of IPC calls for interference. 7. The learned counsel submitted that so far as Section 406 of the IPC is concerned, the punishment has not been interfered with and R.I. for 03 years has been awarded by the learned trial court as well as the appellate court. 8. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is aged about 45 years now and has faced the trial for long years and is presently suffering from serious ailment and therefore, some sympathetic view may be taken, so far as the sentence is concerned. 8. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is aged about 45 years now and has faced the trial for long years and is presently suffering from serious ailment and therefore, some sympathetic view may be taken, so far as the sentence is concerned. He submitted that such submission is being made without prejudice to the arguments on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned judgments, being perverse, call for interference in revisional jurisdiction. Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Party-State 9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party-State submitted that there are concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts in connection with the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 406 and 471 of the IPC. He submitted that the documents are registers of Co-operative Store which are public documents and counter-foils are also involved in this case and therefore, the conviction under Section 471 of IPC is to be seen by referring to Section 466 of IPC and not under Section 465 of IPC and under Section 466 of IPC, the maximum punishment is 07 years. The learned counsel further submitted that the matter relates to defalcation of public money and therefore, the petitioner does not deserve any lenient view. 10. The learned counsel for the State further submitted that so far as the ailment of the petitioner is concerned, there is nothing on record to support and otherwise also the ailment of the petitioner cannot be a ground for modification of the sentences. 11. The learned counsel for the State further submitted that so far as the remaining compensation amount is concerned, the petitioner has not deposited the same so far and the amount was defalcated as back as in the year 2010 and more than 13 years have passed from the date of the incident. Rejoinder arguments on behalf of the petitioner 12. At this, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready to deposit the remaining compensation amount. He also submitted that the sentence can still be modified by this Court considering the facts and circumstances of this case. Findings of this Court 13. The prosecution case is based on a written report of the Informant namely, G. Premanand, Honorary Secretary of N.I.M.E. Co-operative Stores Limited, Noamundi. He also submitted that the sentence can still be modified by this Court considering the facts and circumstances of this case. Findings of this Court 13. The prosecution case is based on a written report of the Informant namely, G. Premanand, Honorary Secretary of N.I.M.E. Co-operative Stores Limited, Noamundi. It was alleged that the petitioner-Sushant Kumar Pattanaik was appointed by the Noamundi Iron Mine Employees’ Cooperative Stores Limited as Manager Account by a letter of appointment dated 30.09.2006. He was in the overall management of the Cooperative Store where consumer products were sold in cash to the persons not employed in Tata Steel Limited, and the employees of Tata Steel Limited, Noamundi were provided articles on credit or cash. There were various computerized counters in which every cash sale transaction was recorded and at the end of the day, the cash sale proceeds were deposited to the concerned employee of the Cooperative Store by whom accounts were maintained. The sale proceeds were deposited in cash at Canara Bank, Noamundi in the Current Account No.10085 of the Cooperative Store. The petitioner used to deposit the cash in Canara Bank, Noamundi. On verification of accounts of the Cooperative Store and comparing the same with the bank transactions, it came to light that the petitioner had misappropriated the money of the Cooperative Store to the tune of about Rs. 13,79,514/- during the period from 2008 to 2010 by not depositing the cash and/or by short deposing the cash on various occasions. The petitioner was the overall in-charge of the management of the Cooperative Store and he had dominion the over cash money of the Cooperative Store which he misappropriated and converted the same for his own use. The details were mentioned in Annexure-1. It was alleged that pay-in-slips were interpolated by the petitioner while depositing the cash and thereby less amount was mentioned and the difference amounts were not deposited. It was also alleged that the petitioner left the job of the cooperative store without making over charge which further demonstrated his malafide and ill design. 14. On the basis of the written report, Noamundi P.S. Case No.60/2010 dated 20.08.2010 was instituted for offence under Sections 406, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. Upon completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted Charge-sheet No.58/2011 dated 30.06.2011 against the petitioner under the same sections and cognizance was also taken under the same sections. 14. On the basis of the written report, Noamundi P.S. Case No.60/2010 dated 20.08.2010 was instituted for offence under Sections 406, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. Upon completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted Charge-sheet No.58/2011 dated 30.06.2011 against the petitioner under the same sections and cognizance was also taken under the same sections. On 30.06.2014, charges under Sections 406, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC were framed against the petitioner in G.R. Case No. 454/2010 (T.R. No. 89/2019) which were read over and explained to him in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 15. In course of trial the prosecution examined altogether 07 witnesses to substantiate the charges against the petitioner. PW-1 is Sanjay Kumar Majhi, PW-2 is Ajit Kumar Mishra, PW-3 is Anil Kumar Das, PW-4 is Vijay Kumar Bhaduri, PW-5 is Santosh Kumar, PW-6 is Ganta Premanand who is the Informant of the case and PW-7 is A.S.I. Lalmuni Ram who is the Investigating Officer of the case. 16. The prosecution exhibited various documents i.e. Signature of PW-1 on seizure list as Exhibit-1; Signature of PW-3 on seizure list as Exhibit-1/1; Signature of PW-1 in Jimmanama as Exhibit-2; Signature of PW-1 on Jimmanama after receiving the seizure list as Exhibit-2/1; Appointment Letter dated 30.09.2006 as Exhibit-3; Meeting Minutes as Exhibit-4; Audit Report for FY 2009-10 in 21 pages as Exhibit-5; Audit Report for FY 2010-11 in 26 pages as Exhibit-6; Statement of Account of Canara Bank Current Account No. 10085 from 11.06.2008 to 23.07.2009 in 62 pages as Exhibit-7; State of Account of Canara Bank Current Account No. 10085 from 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2011 in 35 pages as Exhibit-7/1; Noamundi Iron Mines Bye-laws Book in 40 pages as Exhibit-8; Bank Pay-in-Slip Counterfoil as Exhibits-9 to 9/16; Show cause dated 12.08.2010 as Exhibit-10; Resignation letter dated 08.06.2010 as Exhibit-11; Two Cash Book Registers as Exhibits-12 to 12/1; Show cause to Sanjay Kr. Manjhi dated 17.09.2018 as Exhibit-13; Written report dated 20.08.2009 as Exhibit-14; Endorsement on written report as Exhibit-14/1; Seizure list as Exhibit-15; Jimmanama as Exhibit-16 and Formal FIR as Exhibit-17. 17. PW-1 was posted as Assistant Manager in the Cooperative Store, Noamundi. He is a seizure list witness. He deposed that the petitioner was worked on the post of Manager-cum-Accountant during the period from October 2006 to June 2010 and he used to look after the transactions of the cooperative store. 17. PW-1 was posted as Assistant Manager in the Cooperative Store, Noamundi. He is a seizure list witness. He deposed that the petitioner was worked on the post of Manager-cum-Accountant during the period from October 2006 to June 2010 and he used to look after the transactions of the cooperative store. He further deposed that after taking over the charge of Cooperative Store, he checked the statements of account and found that less amount was deposited. Thereafter, the then Manager, Anil Kumar Das, Secretary G. Premanand, Vice President Sumitro Das and Cashier Pawan Kumar Manjhi verified the bank account and found shortage of Rs.13,79,514/- which was not deposited by the petitioner. The petitioner left the service and kept the money with him. He exhibited the seizure list as Exhibit-1, his signature on Jimmanama as Exhibit-2, his signature on Jimmanama after receiving the seizure list as Exhibit-2/1. In his cross-examination, he admitted that in June 2010, the petitioner had handed over the charge to Manager Anil Kumar Das and went away and the audit was done in 2010. He also admitted that he had signed in the account register on the direction of the petitioner and he used to make entry on the direction of the petitioner. 18. PW-2 is the Chief Manager of Canara Bank. He deposed that the occurrence was of the year 2008 to 2010 and he was posted as Senior Officer in Canara Bank, Noamundi since May 2009 to May 2011. He further deposed that at that point of time, the petitioner had deposited the money of the Cooperative Store, Noamundi in his Bank in Current Account No. 10085. He had heard that the petitioner had not deposited the total amount. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he did not know the Cooperative Society and also did not know as to how much money was collected in the Cooperative Society. 19. PW-3 deposed that he was posted as Manager-cum-Accountant in N.I.M.E. Co-operative Stores Limited from 1972 to 01.03.2011. On 07.07.2010, the Manager of Canara Bank, A.K. Singh had called him and told that the money was not properly deposited in the Bank in account and upon such information, he started enquiry and found that an amount of Rs.13,79,514/- was not deposited in the bank from 14.06.2008 to 25.06.2010. On 07.07.2010, the Manager of Canara Bank, A.K. Singh had called him and told that the money was not properly deposited in the Bank in account and upon such information, he started enquiry and found that an amount of Rs.13,79,514/- was not deposited in the bank from 14.06.2008 to 25.06.2010. The petitioner was the Manager IT-cum-Accountant-cum-Cooperative-in-charge of the Company and the money was deposited in Canara Bank by him who used to look into the entire account. When the forgery came into light, the petitioner had left the service. He exhibited his signature on the seizure list as Exhibit-1/1. In his cross-examination, he admitted that the work was done as per the order of the secretary. He had seen the documents of the bank, but without seeing the documents, he cannot say what forgery has been committed. 20. PW-4 deposed that he was posted as Junior Assistant of N.I.M.E. Co-operative Stores Limited and he had come to know about misappropriation of money by the petitioner from the Manager Anil Kumar Das and Accountant Sanjay Kumar Majhi. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he had no work of the company related to the bank and the petitioner used to do the work related to the bank. 21. PW-5 deposed that he was working as Computer Operator of the N.I.M.E. Co-operative Stores Limited, Noamundi at the time of the occurrence and he came to know about the occurrence from the Manager Anil Kumar Das and Accountant Sanjay Kumar Majhi that the petitioner has misappropriated the money of the cooperative Store. He was posted in the Store in December 2009 and he had seen that the petitioner used to deposit the amount of the store in the bank. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he had never seen the misappropriation of the money of the store from 2008 to 2010. 22. PW-6 is the Informant and the most important witness of the case. He deposed that he was posted as Honorary Secretary in the N.I.M.E. Co-operative Stores Limited since 25.06.2006 and during his posting, the petitioner was appointed as Financial Manager-cum-IT on 30.09.2006. He exhibited the appointment letter dated 30.09.2006 as Exhibit-3. He further deposed that the petitioner was entrusted with the work of Financial Manager-cum-IT and also the work related to Accounts Section. He exhibited the minutes as Exhibit-4. He exhibited the appointment letter dated 30.09.2006 as Exhibit-3. He further deposed that the petitioner was entrusted with the work of Financial Manager-cum-IT and also the work related to Accounts Section. He exhibited the minutes as Exhibit-4. When the accounts of the bank were called for and he had verified the cash book and counterfoil of the deposits and after verification, he found that there was a different of Rs.13,79,514/- and the petitioner had not deposited the difference amount to the Bank. The audit was conducted for the financial year 2009-10. He exhibited the audit report for the Financial Year 2009-10 as Exhibit-5, audit report for the Financial Year 2010-11 as Exhibit-6, statement of the Account No.10085 as Exhibit-7, statements of account from 26.02.2002 to 21.07.2010 and from 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2011 as Exhibit-7/1, Bye-Laws of the Cooperative Stores Limited as Exhibit-8, Deposit slip dated 14.06.2008 as Exhibit-9. He deposed that during verification, they found that there was difference in deposit slips and counterfoils and some counterfoils bear forged seal of the bank. The following chart shows the different amounts deposited in the bank by the petitioner: Date mentioned in counterfoil Amount mentioned in counterfoil Amount mentioned in bank statement 14.06.2008 Rs.86,265/- Rs.40,265/- 23.07.2008 Rs.51,400/- Nothing has been deposited 25.08.2008 Rs.57,326/- Rs.37,326/- 01.11.2008 Rs.57,488/- Rs.50,488/- 19.11.2008 Rs.43,334/- Rs.18,334 04.12.2008 Rs.72,411/- Rs.23,911/- 17.01.2009 Rs.95,796/- Rs.75,796/- 02.03.2009 Rs.83,646/- Nothing has been deposited 04.04.2009 Rs.84,561/- Nothing has been deposited 03.06.2009 Rs.43,117/- Nothing has been deposited 21.08.2009 Rs.44680/- Nothing has been deposited 26.10.2009 Rs.1,31,322/- Nothing has been deposited 03.12.2009 Rs.68,769/- Nothing has been deposited 08.02.2010 Rs.1,36,988/- Nothing has been deposited 27.03.2010 Rs.36,867/- Nothing has been deposited 26.04.2010 Rs.75,496/- Nothing has been deposited 08.05.2010 Rs.1,10,664 Rs.60,664/- 24.05.2010 Rs.98,679/- Rs.48,679/- 29.05.2010 Rs.41,563/- Nothing has been deposited 23. PW-6 further deposed that a show cause was issued to the petitioner, but he did not reply and sent his resignation letter. The counterfoils and cash registers were seized by the police which were handed over to Sanjay Kumar Manjhi (PW-1 – Assistant Manager in Cooperative Store). Sanjay Kumar Manjhi did not produce rest of the two cash registers for which an explanation was sought for. He deposed that it was the duty of the petitioner to collect the amount from counter and keep the same in the chest and on the next working day, to deposit the said amount in the bank. Sanjay Kumar Manjhi did not produce rest of the two cash registers for which an explanation was sought for. He deposed that it was the duty of the petitioner to collect the amount from counter and keep the same in the chest and on the next working day, to deposit the said amount in the bank. A reference was made to the audit report wherein the Senior Auditor had pointed out that there was defalcation of Rs.9,67,857/- upto 31.03.2010 and Rs.4,11,657/- during the Financial Year 2010-11 and the total amount of Rs.13,79,514/-. The aforesaid entries were also supported by the audit report. 24. In his cross-examination, he exhibited the Cash Book Registers as Exhibit-12 and 12/1 which are not in the handwriting of the petitioner, but was written by Shri S.K. Manjhi who was posted as Accountant in the Cooperative Store. He denied that the cash of the store was deposited by Sanjay Kumar Manjhi in the bank and the petitioner was not involved in the matter. He also admitted that Exhibit-9/1 was the counterfoil of Canara Bank in which the signature of the depositor was made in the foil, but the signature of the petitioner was not present and while explaining this, he found that the main counterfoil was received by the Bank on which signature of depositor was present. During cross-examination, he further admitted that Sanjay Kumar Manjhi and one S.K. Mitra were not made accused in the case. He denied the suggestion of the defence that Sanjay Kumar Manjhi was doing the work of cash and he was depositing and withdrawing cash from the Bank. He also denied the suggestion that the informant alongwith others misappropriated the money and falsely implicated the petitioner in the case. 25. PW-7 is the Investigating Officer of the case. He deposed that on 20.08.2010, he was posted at Noamundi Police Station and took charge of the investigation of the case. He has proved the place of occurrence. He exhibited the endorsement on computer typed report as Exhibit-14/1). He has stated that he had recorded the statement of the witnesses. He had gone to Canara Bank, Noamundi and had met with Branch Manager Ajit Kumar Mishra and had demanded the certificate of statement of accounts from 14.06.2008 to 25.06.2010 in respect of the Cooperative Store. He exhibited the endorsement on computer typed report as Exhibit-14/1). He has stated that he had recorded the statement of the witnesses. He had gone to Canara Bank, Noamundi and had met with Branch Manager Ajit Kumar Mishra and had demanded the certificate of statement of accounts from 14.06.2008 to 25.06.2010 in respect of the Cooperative Store. He had seized the counterfoils of deposited money of the store in presence of two independent witnesses namely, Anil Kumar Das and Sanjay Kumar Manjhi. He exhibited the seizure list as Exhibit-15. He also deposed that he had seized the cash book. He exhibited the cash book numbered as 1, 2, 3 and 4 which were given to Sanjay Kumar Manjhi, Account of Cooperative Store in presence of Anil Kumar Das by Jimmanama. He exhibited the Jimmanama as Exhibit-16. He deposed that he tallied the amount of the Cooperative Store with the statement of account of Canara Bank and found that there was huge difference in the money and suspected that petitioner has made a seal of Canara Bank and himself filled money by changing the actual money deposited in Bank and after putting the seal kept it in record. After completion of investigation, he found that the suspicion is correct and submitted a charge-sheet against the petitioner. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he did not send the handwriting of the petitioner for S.F.S.L. examination and had not recorded the statement of cashier of Canara Bank, Noamundi who had deposited the money into the bank. In the FIR, a counterfoil of Canara Bank, Noamundi was attached, but on the said counterfoil, signature of the petitioner was not present. He denied the suggestion of the defence that he had conducted false investigation as because the petitioner was not appointed in Noamundi Cooperative Store on the post of Accountant. 26. On 15.02.2019, the statements of the petitioner were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein he denied the incriminating evidences put to him and claimed to be innocent. The petitioner did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence in his defence. 27. 26. On 15.02.2019, the statements of the petitioner were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein he denied the incriminating evidences put to him and claimed to be innocent. The petitioner did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence in his defence. 27. The learned trial Court considered the materials, dealt with both oral and documentary evidences on record in detail and recorded that after discussion of prosecution witnesses and the documents produced by the prosecution side, it was clear that the petitioner was entrusted to look after the account as Manager Accounts-cum-IT and had defalcated huge money of the cooperative store and convicted the petitioner for offences under Sections 406, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC and sentenced him as recorded above. 28. The learned trial court has considering in detail various documentary evidences which showed that there was mismatch in the amount actually deposited in the bank and the amount mentioned in the bank-counterfoils. There were numerous instances when the bank- counterfoils were available but nothing was deposited in the bank and there were also numerous instances when the bank-counterfoils showed much higher amount as compared to the amount actually deposited in the bank. 29. The learned trial court after considering the oral and documentary evidences came to a conclusion that it was clear that the petitioner had committed breach of trust during discharging of his duty as Manager Account-cum-IT and held that the prosecution was able to establish the case against the petitioner for offence under Section 406 of IPC and held the petitioner guilty under the said Section. 30. So far as Section 471 of IPC is concerned, the learned trial court has held the petitioner guilty under this Section by referring to Exhibit 9, 9/2, 9/4, 9/5 and 9/6 which were in the writing of the petitioner in the store register and other exhibits which were the counterfoils written by other staffs of the store on the instructions of the petitioner. The petitioner had full knowledge that the documents produced by him were false and he had produced the documents for committing forgery and he fraudulently and dishonestly used these documents during his posting as Manager Account-cum-IT in the cooperative store at Noamundi. The petitioner had full knowledge that the documents produced by him were false and he had produced the documents for committing forgery and he fraudulently and dishonestly used these documents during his posting as Manager Account-cum-IT in the cooperative store at Noamundi. The same was entered in the cash book register which was exhibit 12 and 12/1 and after considering the materials, the learned trial court held the petitioner guilty of charges under Section 471 of IPC. The learned trial court also recorded that upon comparing the counterfoils which were exhibit 9 series, cash book registers which were exhibit 12 and 12/1 and the bank statements which were exhibits 7 and 7/1, it clearly indicated that less amount was deposited in the bank and there was no explanation from the side of the petitioner why such type of difference came out from these documents and it was the petitioner who entrusted to look after the account as Manager Account-cum-IT and recorded that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the petitioner under Section 471 of IPC. 31. The appellate court also considered the materials on record and meticulously examined the evidences on record and acquitted the petitioner from the charges under Sections 467 and 468 of IPC and sustained his conviction under Sections 406 and 471 of the IPC. Since the petitioner has been acquitted by the appellate court for the offence under Sections 467 and 468 of the IPC, there is no need to discuss about the findings of the learned trial court and appellate court with regard to Sections 467 and 468 of the IPC. 32. So far as the conviction under Section 406 of IPC is concerned, the appellate court recorded its finding as under: - “10. …………………………………… From the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record as discussed above, it is crystal clear that there was no dispute about daily collection of money from the Co-operative Stores and deposited the same with Canara Bank Noamundi (Ext-9 to 9/16) counterfoils thereof by the present appellant and maintaining of accounts. …………………………………… From the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record as discussed above, it is crystal clear that there was no dispute about daily collection of money from the Co-operative Stores and deposited the same with Canara Bank Noamundi (Ext-9 to 9/16) counterfoils thereof by the present appellant and maintaining of accounts. But unfortunately, the matter was disputed when an inquiry was made by the members of Co-operative Store with the Canara Bank and found that cash of Rs.13,78,514/- was less deposited by the appellant in the account of Co-operative Store in Canara Bank, Noamundi, which reveals the illegal transaction being carried on by the appellant. Admittedly, the N.L.M.E. Co-operative Stores Ltd., Noamundi is a very old Store and all the sale proceeds was maintained by appellant. The appellant has collected the daily cash after sale and deposited the same into the Bank on next working day. ……………………………………………………………… 11. In the instant case, the present appellant had dominion over the property collected by him from the Store, the money has to be deposited in Canara Bank, Noamundi and after depositing the cash, he has received the counterfoil and kept with record. So far argument of learned counsel for appellant that no property was used by him or misappropriated is concerned, I am of the view that to establish the charge of criminal breach of trust, the prosecution is not obliged to prove the precise mode of conversion, misappropriation or misapplication by the accused/appellant of the property entrusted to him or over which he has dominion. The principal ingredient of the offence being dishonest misapplication or conversion, which may not ordinarily be a matter of direct proof, entrustment of property and failure in breach of an obligation to account for the property entrusted, if proved, may, in the light of other circumstances, justifiably lead to an inference of dishonest misappropriation or conversion. It is also admitted fact that the appellant has given Rs.4,75,000/- by making bank draft to the N.I.M.E. Cooperative Store Ltd. as per direction of the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi passed in A.B.A. No.4767 of 2010 vide order dt. 14.02.2011, which fact clearly shows the admission of appellant. In the light of above discussion and observations, I find that constituents of offence of criminal breach of trust, has been proved beyond doubt by the prosecution. 14.02.2011, which fact clearly shows the admission of appellant. In the light of above discussion and observations, I find that constituents of offence of criminal breach of trust, has been proved beyond doubt by the prosecution. Thus, I find no illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by the learned Court below as regards to charge U/s 406 of the IPC also.” 33. So far as the conviction under Section 471 of IPC is concerned, the appellate court recorded its finding as under: - “12. So far charge U/s 471 of the IPC. So far conviction and sentence of appellant for the offence u/s 471 I.P.C. is concerned, it punishes the dishonest use of forged document as genuine knowing or having the reason to believe it to be forged. In the instant case, the prosecution has consistently prove that the appellant has prepared the forged document i.e. counterfoil by entering more amount on it and deposited less money in the account of Co-operative Stores at Canara Bank, Noamundi, hence it appears that the appellant has fraudulently use of a document i.e. counterfoil as genuine, knowing or having to believe that the document is a forged one. Thus, I find no illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by the learned Court below as regards to charge U/s 471 of the IPC also.” 34. The learned appellate court concurred with the sentence under Section 406 of IPC and modified the sentence under Section 471 of IPC as under: - “16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that R.I. for Five Years along with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence u/s 471 I.P.C. awarded to appellant by the learned Court below appears to be disproportionate to his guilt. At the same time, considering the serious nature of the offence appellant should not be extended benefit of provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 17. In my considered view R.I. of Four Years along with fine of Rs. 5,000/- in place of R.I. of Five Years along with fine of Rs. 5,000/- awarded upon appellate for the offence u/s 471 I.P.C. would meet the ends of justice in this case. In the aforementioned facts and circumstances, impugned judgment of conviction of appellant for the offence u/s 471 I.P.C. is, hereby, upheld and confirmed with above modification. 5,000/- in place of R.I. of Five Years along with fine of Rs. 5,000/- awarded upon appellate for the offence u/s 471 I.P.C. would meet the ends of justice in this case. In the aforementioned facts and circumstances, impugned judgment of conviction of appellant for the offence u/s 471 I.P.C. is, hereby, upheld and confirmed with above modification. There is no interference in the sentence passed u/s 406 of the I.P.C. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently.” 35. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the impugned judgments and the records of the case, this Court finds that PW-6 Informant has fully supported the prosecution case and PWs- 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 as well as PW-7 Investigating Officer have fully corroborated the evidence of the Informant. 36. This Court further finds that the learned appellate court has carefully scrutinized the materials on record and has found sufficient evidence to hold the petitioner guilty for the offences under Sections 406 and 471 of IPC and thereby upheld the conviction passed by the learned trial court with respect to Sections 406 and 471 of IPC. 37. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court that, there were many other persons involved in the alleged transaction and that the petitioner has been isolated and he faced the trial before the learned court, is not a ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction of the petitioner by the learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court, so far as conviction under Sections 406 and 471 of IPC is concerned. 38. PW-2 has clearly deposed that P.W-2 was posted in the Bank during the period from May 2009 to May 2011 in senior post and the petitioner used to visit the Bank to deposit the amount in the bank account of the Cooperative Store being current account No. 10085. This witness has been duly cross-examined but the aforesaid evidence remained intact. Thus, there is evidence on record to show that it was the petitioner who was visiting the bank for deposit of the amount. It has come on record that there was mismatch with respect to counterfoils of deposit and actual deposit in the bank account. This witness has been duly cross-examined but the aforesaid evidence remained intact. Thus, there is evidence on record to show that it was the petitioner who was visiting the bank for deposit of the amount. It has come on record that there was mismatch with respect to counterfoils of deposit and actual deposit in the bank account. This Court finds that the allegation which stood proved against the petitioner was that the cash amount which was shown to be deposited in the bank-counterfoils were not the amount actually deposited or not deposited at all by the petitioner and the petitioner had used the forged bank-counter foils as genuine to show that the amounts mentioned in the counter foils were actually deposited. 39. The argument of the petitioner that, conviction under Section 471 of IPC is to be seen by referring to Section 465 of IPC where the maximum prescribed punishment is only 02 years, is devoid of any merit. It has been rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the opposite party-State that in the present case conviction under Section 471 of IPC is to be seen by referring to Section 466 of IPC wherein the maximum prescribed punishment is 07 years. The present case involves knowingly using forged bank counter foils as genuine to show certain deposits in the bank which were either short deposited or not deposited. The officers of the bank are public servants and dealing with public money and accordingly Section 466 of IPC is attracted as the petitioner has knowingly used as genuine the forged bank-counterfoils. Section 471 deals with fraudulent or dishonest use as genuine any document which a person knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document and such person is punishable in the same manner as if he had forged such document. 40. This Court finds that there is clinching evidence on record to convict the petitioner under Sections 406 and 471 of IPC and there is no scope for re-appreciation of materials on record and coming to a different finding. 41. 40. This Court finds that there is clinching evidence on record to convict the petitioner under Sections 406 and 471 of IPC and there is no scope for re-appreciation of materials on record and coming to a different finding. 41. This Court finds that there are concurrent findings of the two court so far as they relate to conviction under section 406 and 471 of IPC and the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any material upon whose consideration the impugned judgements could be rendered as perverse or illegal or suffer from any material irregularity. 42. So far as punishment is concerned, this Court is of the considered view that the punishment passed by the learned appellate court is adequate and the same does not call for any interference. 43. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has explained the power of revisional court in the case of Jagannath Choudhary and others reported in (2002) 5 SCC 659 at Para-9 as under:- “9. Incidentally the object of the revisional jurisdiction as envisaged under Section 401 was to confer upon superior criminal courts a kind of paternal or supervisory jurisdiction, in order to correct miscarriage of justice arising from misconception of law, irregularity of procedure, neglect of proper precautions or apparent harshness of treatment which has resulted on the one hand in some injury to the due maintenance of law and order, or on the other hand in some undeserved hardship to individuals. (See in this context the decision of this Court in Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary [ (1992) 4 SCC 305 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 36]). The main question which the High Court has to consider in an application in revision is whether substantial justice has been done. If however, the same has been an appeal, the applicant would be entitled to demand an adjudication upon all questions of fact or law which he wishes to raise, but in revision the only question is whether the Court should interfere in the interests of justice. Where the court concerned does not appear to have committed any illegality or material irregularity or impropriety in passing the impugned judgment and order, the revision cannot succeed. Where the court concerned does not appear to have committed any illegality or material irregularity or impropriety in passing the impugned judgment and order, the revision cannot succeed. If the impugned order apparently is presentable, without any such infirmity which may render it completely perverse or unacceptable and when there is no failure of justice, interference cannot be had in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.” 44. The revisional power is further explained in the case of Ramesh Kumar Bajaj reported in (2009) 1 JCR 684 (Jhar) at Para-13 as follows: “13. It is well settled that revisional interference may be justified where: (i) the decision is grossly erroneous. (ii) there is no compliance with the provisions of law. (iii) the finding of fact affecting the decision is not based on evidence. (iv) material evidence of the parties is not considered and (v) judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely.” 45. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the limited scope for interference in revisional jurisdiction, this Court does not find any material irregularity or perversity to interfere with the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 406 and 471 of IPC as well as awarding the compensation amount under Section 357(3) of CrPC to the N.I.M.E. Co-operative Stores Limited. 46. Accordingly, the impugned judgment passed by the learned appellate court is upheld and this criminal revision petition is hereby dismissed. 47. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 48. Bail bond furnished by the petitioner is cancelled. 49. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through “email/FAX”.