JUDGMENT : A. BADHARUDEEN, J. The accused in C.C.No.25 of 2008 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kottayam, has filed this Criminal Appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (`Cr.P.C’ for short hereafter) challenging the conviction and sentence imposed against him in the above case dated 11.02.2010 arraying State of Kerala represented by the Dy.S.P, VACB as the respondent. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused and the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the VACB. 3. Perused the records of the Special Court and the judgment under challenge. 4. The prosecution case is that the accused while working as Senior Assistant Grade-I, in Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation (`KSCSC’ for short), Taluk Depot, Cherthala, and as such a public servant, abused his official position to obtain illegal pecuniary advantage for himself and accordingly he had misappropriated 120 quintals of levy sugar worth Rs.1,02,000/- which was entrusted to him on 18.04.1991 on falsifying the records thereof. On this premise, prosecution alleged that the accused had committed offences punishable under Sections 409 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC’ for short) as well as under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998 (`PC Act, 1988’ for short hereafter). 5. On receipt of the final report filed in this crime, the Special Court proceeded with trial on completing the pre-trial formalities. During trial, PW1 to PW8 were examined and Exts.P1 to P28 were marked on the side of the accused. On the side of defence, Exts.D1 and D2 were marked. On an anxious consideration of the evidence available, the Special Court found that the accused had committed offences punishable under Sections 409 and 477A of the IPC and also under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) of the PC Act, 1988. Thus the trial court convicted and sentenced the accused as under: “In the result, the accused is convicted under Sec. 13(2) r/w 13(1) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 (three) years and fine Rs.1,00,000/- (one lakh), in default to under go simple imprisonment for 6 (six) months, convicted under section 409 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 (three) years and fine Rs.1,00,000/- (one lakh) in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 (six months) and convicted under Sec.477A I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The sentences shall run concurrently.” 6. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused raised multiple contentions to upset the verdict impugned. According to the learned counsel for the appellant/accused, as regards to entrustment of 120 quintals of levy sugar in the custody of the accused, there is no convincing evidence. It is argued that as on 18.04.1991, the accused was not in charge of keeping levy sugar and the said charge was held by PW1, Kusumam and thereafter a document produced as Ext.P1 was created by PW1 and other officials to show that the charge of levy sugar was held by the accused as on 18.04.1991 at a subsequent stage, i.e on 24.04.1991 to fasten liability of missing sugar on the accused. That apart, Ext.P1 report was not sufficiently proved. As regards to the endorsement on the reverse side of Ext.P2, the carbon copy of Goods Transfer Order (GTO) receipt notes dated 18.04.1991, the same is suspicious, false and fabricated one and thus it could not be considered as a genuine one. If the accused had a motive to misappropriate the sugar, he could have put a different sign deliberately. It is pointed out further that Ext.P2 was kept illegally by the contractor PW12 without handing over the same to KSCSC for getting GTRN and no explanation in this regard was brought by the VACB and thus Ext.P2 could not be found as genuine document. The Special Court went wrong relying on the evidence of PW6 and PW15 to find that the accused misappropriated 120 quintals of levy sugar, as alleged by the prosecution and found that he had committed offences punishable under Sections 409 and 477A of the IPC and also under Section 13(1)(c) r/w 13 (2) of the PC Act, 1988. It is pointed out that, on evaluation of prosecution case supported by Exts.D1 and D2 along with the written statement filed by the appellant/accused during his examination under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C would show that he was innocent and prosecution miserably failed to prove the case against the appellant. It is pointed out that, on evaluation of prosecution case supported by Exts.D1 and D2 along with the written statement filed by the appellant/accused during his examination under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C would show that he was innocent and prosecution miserably failed to prove the case against the appellant. It is contended further that since the sugar load was reached after 5.30 p.m, if there occurred unloading of the same, there must be evidence showing the payment of unloading fee to the workers of the union and the amount would be double because the time of unloading to be treated as over time as far as the labourers were concerned. 7. Disspelling this argument, the learned Special Public Prosecutor would submit that Ext.P9(f) and Ext.P2 would show that 120 quintals of levy sugar was dispatched from Kollam depot to Cherthala depot of the KSCBC on 18.04.1991 and the accused made an endorsement on Ext.P2 stating that he had received the sugar. Ext.P1 would indicate that he was in charge of sugar section on that day. That apart, evidence of PW6 along with Ext.P1 report corroborated that the endorsement was made by the appellant himself. Thus the prosecution evidence would convincingly show that on getting the entrustment of 120 quintals of sugar, the accused diverted the same to PW4, PW5 and PW7 and obtained money therefrom to the tune of Rs.1,02,000/-. It is also pointed out that though PW4, PW5 and PW7 were examined to prove that they have obtained sugar from the appellant, they did not support the prosecution case as they denied having received any sugar from PW1. According to the learned Public Prosecutor the allegation against the appellant is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Thus the conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Court are only to be confirmed. 8. In response to the arguments tendered, the questions raised for consideration are: (i) Whether the Special Court is justified in holding that the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 409 of IPC? (ii) Whether the Special Court rightly held that the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 477A of IPC? (iii) Whether the Special Court rightly held that the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(c) r/w 13(2) of PC Act, 1988? (iv) Is it necessary to interfere with the verdict impugned? (v) The order to be passed? Point Nos.(i) to (v) 9. (iii) Whether the Special Court rightly held that the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(c) r/w 13(2) of PC Act, 1988? (iv) Is it necessary to interfere with the verdict impugned? (v) The order to be passed? Point Nos.(i) to (v) 9. The prime witness in this case is PW1. PW1 deposed that she was the Senior Assistant in Cherthala Depot of KSCSC from 1988 to 1993 and she held the charge of distribution and stock of sugar till 17.04.1991. She deposed that after 17.04.1991, the said charge was handed over to the accused and Ext.P1 is the charge handing over report. It was through her, Ext.P3 attendance register maintained at the office marked to show that the accused was present in Depot on 18.04.1991. According to PW1, the contractor from P&V Associates approached her stating that they didn’t get GTRN and found that on 18.04.1991, 5 loads of sugar and on 19.04.1991, 2 loads of sugar were received from them. According to her, Ext.P4 is the GTO receipt note book. PW1 deposed that Ext.P2 is the carbon copy of GTO dated 18.04.1991 and the accused signed on the backside of Ext.P2 with endorsement that “received 120 bags”. According to PW1, when she asked this aspect to the accused, who was in charge of GTO on 18.04.1991, he stated that he didn’t know. She also deposed about the procedure of getting custody of stocks. According to her, the driver or cleaner of the lorry would bring the load along with GTO and on receipt of the load, the GTRN would be issued for the loads to be delivered till 5 p.m. When loads would be received after 5 p.m, it would be written on the back of GTO that the goods were received. It was through her, Ext.P5 stock register maintained in the office was marked. According to her, as per Ext.P5(a), page No.351 of Ext.P5 stock register, in between 18.04.1991 and 19.04.1991, 1020 quintals of sugar was brought and as per Ext.P4(a) to (g), the corresponding GTRNs were separately marked. However, 120 quintals of sugar received by the accused were not accounted. 10. PW2 examined in this case was the manager in the inspection wing of KSCSC, from 1989 onwards. However, 120 quintals of sugar received by the accused were not accounted. 10. PW2 examined in this case was the manager in the inspection wing of KSCSC, from 1989 onwards. According to him, he had conducted an inspection on 10.04.1992 at Cherthala Depot in connection with missing of 120 quintals of levy sugar and Ext.P8 is the report filed by him. He also submitted that he had gone to Kollam depot and inspected the GTOs and Ext.P9 series are the 8 GTOs inspected by him. He further said that on 18/04/1991, 720 quintals of sugar and on 19/04/1991, 220 quintals of sugar were supplied from Kollam depot to Cherthala depot, but on verification of the GTRN and stock register in Cherthala depot, it was found that on 18/04/1991 and 19/04/1991 only 820 quintals of sugar were received. He further deposed that in the stock register it was written that the sugar was despatched on 19/04/1991. So it was reported so as per Ext.P8. 11. It is seen that Ext.P9(f) is the GTO (Goods Transfer Order) original and Ext.P2 is the duplicate carbon copy. So Ext.P9(f) and Ext.P2 would show that 120 quintals of levy sugar was dispatched from Kollam depot to Cherthala depot. The contention of the accused is that the goods were not received by the accused in Cherthala depot and the allegation is that PW1, the contractor, driver and cleaner or some person in Kollam depot misappropriated that sugar. Although the prosecution proved that 120 quintals of sugar was dispatched from Kollam depot, it was not accounted in Cherthala depot. 12. Apart from the evidence of PW1 and PW2, the evidence of PW6, PW14, PW15 and PW16 also relevant to decide the case. In this matter, endorsement on the backside of Ext.P2 was forwarded for expert opinion to ascertain the handwriting therein along with Ext.P16 series specimen hand-writings and signatures taken from the accused. Ext.P15 is the report submitted by PW6, who was the Assistant Director (documents) in the Forensic Science Laboratory. PW6 deposed that he had examined the questioned document carefully and thoroughly and compared the same with the standard documents in all respect. Ext.P15 is the report submitted by PW6, who was the Assistant Director (documents) in the Forensic Science Laboratory. PW6 deposed that he had examined the questioned document carefully and thoroughly and compared the same with the standard documents in all respect. He further testified that the result of the examination was that the person who wrote the blue enclosed standard writings and signatures stamped and marked as S1 to S3, and S1(a) to S3(a) and Al to A12 also wrote the red enclosed questioned writings and signatures similarity stamped and marked as Q1. Q1 is the endorsement on the reverse side on Ext. P2. S1 to S3 and S1(a) to S3(a) are marked as Ext.P16 series Al to A12 are the initials of the accused in Ext.P3 attendance register. So as per the opinion given by PW6 the endorsement on the back of Ext.P2 that "received 120 bags” and the initial with date 18/04/1991 are in the hand writing of the accused. 13. While challenging Ext.P15 report, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the accused that the same is only an opinion evidence in the form of a corroborative nature and, therefore, the same has no independent existence unless there is substantive evidence to prove the same. This legal position is not in dispute. Anyhow, as per Ext.P15, the expert opined that the endorsement “received 120 bags” and the initial with date 18.04.1991 are in the handwriting of the accused. Though during cross examination of PW6 it was attempted to elicit that handwriting of one person may show variation in some handwriting characteristics with passage of time, the expert replied that variation would be always within the range of natural variation and in the present case the variation found was only within the range of natural variation. 14. In this case, the Special Court had given emphasis to the expert report supported by the substantive evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW14 with the aid of the evidence given by PW15 and PW16 to hold that the accused received 120 quintals of sugar on 18.04.1991 and thus the said quantity of sugar was entrusted with the accused. 15. 14. In this case, the Special Court had given emphasis to the expert report supported by the substantive evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW14 with the aid of the evidence given by PW15 and PW16 to hold that the accused received 120 quintals of sugar on 18.04.1991 and thus the said quantity of sugar was entrusted with the accused. 15. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused that there was correction as regards to the date 17 ` .04.1991’ in Ext.P1 to show the same as created on 25.04.1991, which would show that the accused held the charge of stock distribution and stock of sugar as on 18.04.1991. In this connection, Exts.D1 and D2 are also relevant. Ext.D1 is the statement given by the accused to PW2 at the time of departmental enquiry and it was stated therein that the accused handed over the charge to a new person on 17.04.1991 itself. At the same time, he had a case that he took charge of sugar section only on 24.04.1991. Ext.D2 is the copy of the explanation given by the accused to the Managing Director, KSCSC, during the disciplinary proceedings. Therein also he had a contention that he had transferred rice and provision on 17.04.1991 and he took charge of the sugar section on 25.04.1991, showing the same as 17.04.1991 to suit to certain formalities and adjustments. The Special Court discussed this fact and observed in paragraph 20 as under: “20. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx A question may arise if he already handed over the section he was dealing to the new person on 17/04/1991 itself, what he was doing till 25/04/1991. In cross examination of PW1 no question is asked why even though it is written in Ext.Pl that charge was handed over on 17/04/1991, the charge was actually handed over only on 25/04/1991. It is true it is asked that by the time 2' is written in Ext.P1, due to the pressure and out of the good relationship between the employees in the office he took charge on 25/04/1991 by writing the date 17/04/1991. PW1 denied the same. It doesn't appear that the said suggestion is probable. It is true it is asked that by the time 2' is written in Ext.P1, due to the pressure and out of the good relationship between the employees in the office he took charge on 25/04/1991 by writing the date 17/04/1991. PW1 denied the same. It doesn't appear that the said suggestion is probable. It is to be noted that in another part of the cross examination it is suggested that the accused was a strict person, he was not amenable to show any compromise, he was not ready to act against law and honesty and so the Assistant Manger, PW1 and helpers Anuradha & Sathyan were not in good term with him. PWI replied that she was in good terms with accused as a co-employee. So the accused could not bring out that there was any necessity for him to write that he took charge on 17/04/1991 when actually he took charge only on 25/04/1991. So the testimony of PW1 and Ext.P1 would clearly prove that the accused took charge of the sugar section on 17/04/1991 itself. So the accused was entrusted with the sugar section on 17/04/1991 itself. Learned counsel for the accused mentioned the ruling reported in AIR 1999 SC 1301 and AIR 1983 SC 631 and argued that in prosecution of offence of criminal breach of trust, proof of entrustment is necessary and that there should be legal and independent evidence with regard to the entrustment. In the present case Ext.P11 shows that office order was issued on 12/04/1991 deputing the accused in the levy sugar section and Ext.P1 shows that the accused was handed over charge of the sugar section on 17/04/1991. So the prosecution proved the entrustment of that section with the accused. The evidence of PW16 to a limited extend and the endorsement on the back of Ext.P2 show that he received 120 bags of sugar on 18/04/1991. The expert opined that the person who wrote the admitted writings and signatures also wrote the disputed writing and signatures i.e, the accused himself endorsed on the back of Ext.P2. So the prosecution could prove that the accused was entrusted with the sugar section and he received 120 bags of sugar on 18/04/1991.” The observation of the Special Court as extracted above could only to be justified. 16. So the prosecution could prove that the accused was entrusted with the sugar section and he received 120 bags of sugar on 18/04/1991.” The observation of the Special Court as extracted above could only to be justified. 16. PW14 deposed that his father had a lorry bearing register No.KEF 3479, that during 1991 one Sahadevan was driving that lorry and that he used to go as cleaner in that lorry. He didn't fully support the prosecution case. But PW14 supported the prosecution case to some extent. He testified that he had gone to Cherthala depot from Kollam railway goods yard with one load of sugar, that the same was unloaded in the godown at Cherthala and the person therein signed on the paper after unloading the goods, showing acceptance of the same. He didn't specifically say who was the person there in signed on the back of Ext.P2. To the questions whether he had given statement to the Vigilance Police that he went to the godown with GTO and that after unloading the goods he got endorsement on the backside of GTO that the goods were received, he replied that he didn't remember. Then the Additional Legal Advisor declared him as hostile to the prosecution. The contradictory statements given by him to the Vigilance Police were marked as Ext.P28 and P28(a). As argued by the counsel for the accused the said statements were of no significance. 17. But on further examination of PW14 by the Additional Legal Advisor, he deposed that 120 bags of sugar was unloaded in that godown and there was an officer from the Civil Supplies Corporation at that time, but he said that he didn't give the name of that person to the Vigilance Dy.S.P. When he was asked whether he would remember that officer, he replied that he didn't remember, but later he saw the said officer at Vigilance office. He didn't identify the accused at the dock as the officer who was present in the Cherthala Civil Supplies Godown at the time of unloading the disputed sugar. But in cross examination by the counsel for the accused, he replied that Ext.P2 is the GTO given to him from Kollam depot, that since there was nobody in Cherthala depot office to make seal in that GTO, he returned the same to the party at Kollam. But in cross examination by the counsel for the accused, he replied that Ext.P2 is the GTO given to him from Kollam depot, that since there was nobody in Cherthala depot office to make seal in that GTO, he returned the same to the party at Kollam. When the counsel for the accused interrogated PW14 suggesting that he did not know that the endorsement on the back side of Ext.P2 (120 bags received) by the officer at Cherthala depot, he replied that the said endorsement was made by the officer in Cherthala depot. So during the cross examination for the accused, it is brought out from PW14 that he brought Ext.P2 GTO from Kollam depot to Cherthala depot and that officer in Cherthala depot made endorsement on the back of Ext.P2 after the goods were delivered in Cherthala Depot. 18. Now the question is, who received the said 120 bags of sugar at Cherthala depot. PW 15 deposed that he was the managing partner of P & V Associates, Kollam, that they used to handle goods like rice & sugar from Kollam depot of Civil Supplies Corporation, that on 18/04/1991 8 loads of sugar were sent from that depot to Cherthala depot and Ext.P9 series are the GTOs in respect of that loads. He further said that Ext.P2 is the GTO in respect of 120 bags of sugar sent to Cherthala depot on 18/04/1991 from Kollam railway goods shed and it contains his signature and that the GTRN in respect of the same was not received. He enquired about the same at Cherthala depot and it was told that such a load was not received there. He enquired about this aspect to his driver and it was replied that there was delay in unloading the goods and unloading was completed during night. Therefore, GTRN was not obtained on that day and the next day the endorsement was made on the back side of Ext.P2 that the load was received there. He also said that he asked about the same to the officer Smt.Kusumam in Cherthala, then she enquired the same with Ponnan (accused), then she replied that she had asked Ponnan (accused) who was in charge of that section regarding this aspect and thereafter she told that such load of sugar was not unloaded there. He also said that he asked about the same to the officer Smt.Kusumam in Cherthala, then she enquired the same with Ponnan (accused), then she replied that she had asked Ponnan (accused) who was in charge of that section regarding this aspect and thereafter she told that such load of sugar was not unloaded there. He also said that Ext.P2 contains the signature of the driver and the clerk at Kollam Regional depot. In chief examination he said that since it was a busy time, delay was caused in getting GTRN. In cross examination he said that he had gone to the Cherthala depot enquirying about GTRN only towards the end of the contract period and that he didn't give any complaint for a period of one year. 19. Ext.P2 contains the signature of PW16, the driver. There is no dispute that Ext. P2 is the GTO for transporting the disputed sugar. The counsel for the accused argued that the original of Ext.P2 is not produced by the prosecution. But as pointed out by Additional Legal Advisor Ext.P9(f) is the original GTO kept at Kollam depot and Ext. P2 is the duplicate of the same. On evaluating the evidence of PW14 to 16 in its entirety, the prosecution established that 120 bags of levy sugar was unloaded in the godown of Cherthala depot of Civil Supplies Corporation in the lorry brought by PW16. Most importantly the evidence of PW14 and PW16 would show that it was the officer in charge of the godown received the loads as per Exts.P2 and P9(f). At this juncture, the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW6 along with Ext.P15 expert opinion become relevant. These evidence categorically proved that it was the accused who received the load. 20. The prime contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused is that since no GTRN was obtained for want of valid acknowledgment of sugar in the Cherthala Depot, the allegation that the 120 quintals of sugar was entrusted with the accused is an impossibility, rather the same was not proved by the prosecution. This contention was negatived by the Special Court holding that when the evidence available substantially proved that the accused received the sugar, the accused could not take advantage of the non action on the part of the contractor to get GTRN as a ground to avoid his liability as well as entrustment. This contention was negatived by the Special Court holding that when the evidence available substantially proved that the accused received the sugar, the accused could not take advantage of the non action on the part of the contractor to get GTRN as a ground to avoid his liability as well as entrustment. In fact, the finding so entered by the Special Court is only to be justified. 21. Coming to the contention raised by the accused that the misappropriation of 120 quintals of sugar was at the instance of PW1, the contractor, the driver, the cleaner and clerk of Kollam Depot and the accused is not responsible for the same, this contention mainly raised on the ground that no GTRN was issued to show entrustment of the sugar at the hands of the accused. It is true that PW15 was the contractor of the KSCSC and evidently GTRN was not issued from Cherthala Depot for multiple reasons including the inaction on the part of PW15 to ask the same in time. Similarly as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant as regards to unloading and payment of normal charge or double charge as over time, no convincing evidence forthcoming, but in Ext.P10 enquiry report, PW3 noted that the claims towards loading and unloading were done in a week by settlement on the last working day of that week and he noticed claim of unloading charge of Rs.1,120/- on 20.04.1991 for unloading 1120 bags of sugar vide voucher No.46 based on the GTRN was written from 18.04.1991 to 20.04.1991. Thus it appears that GTRN is the basic document upon which unloading charges would be claimed and in the instant case, GTRN was not issued. Therefore, the unloading charges might be omitted to be claimed for want of GTRN. Thus this aspect is of least significance in this case. 22. On re-appreciation of the evidence discussed herein, the prosecution succeeded in proving that 120 quintals of levy sugar was dispatched from Kollam Depot to Cherthala Depot of the KSCSC on 18.04.1991, as evident from Ext.P9(f) and Ext.P2. Thus this aspect is of least significance in this case. 22. On re-appreciation of the evidence discussed herein, the prosecution succeeded in proving that 120 quintals of levy sugar was dispatched from Kollam Depot to Cherthala Depot of the KSCSC on 18.04.1991, as evident from Ext.P9(f) and Ext.P2. The endorsement made by the accused on the backside of Ext.P2 showing receipt of the same was proved by the prosecution by the substantive evidence of PW1, PW2, PW14, PW16 and through Ext.P9(f) and Ext.P2 GTO as well as by the corroborative evidence in the form of FSL report tendered in evidence that PW6, the expert, stating that the entry on the back side of Ext.P2 that “received 120 bags” was made by the accused with his initial. That apart, Ext.P1 established the fact that the accused was in charge of sugar section on 18.04.1991. Thus the contra-contentions raised by the accused have no legs to stand and are rejected. 23. Section 409 of IPC deals with `Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent’, wherein it has been provided that “Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property in his capacity of a public servant or in the way of his business as a banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. 24. The essential ingredients to prove an offence under Section 409 of IPC are: (i) That the accused was entrusted with the property in any manner; or That such property was in his dominion, in his capacity of a public servant, or as banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent, in the way of his business in such capacity; (ii) That the accused committed breach of trust in respect of that property. 25. No doubt, the gravamen of the offence under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is dishonest intention on the part of the accused but to establish the dishonest intention, it is not necessary that the prosecution should establish an intention to retain permanently, the property misappropriated. 25. No doubt, the gravamen of the offence under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is dishonest intention on the part of the accused but to establish the dishonest intention, it is not necessary that the prosecution should establish an intention to retain permanently, the property misappropriated. An intention, wrongfully to deprive the owner of the use of the property for a time and to secure the use of that property for his own benefit for a time would be sufficient. The section cannot be construed as implying that any head of an office, who is negligent in seeing that the rules about remitting money to the treasury are observed, is ipso facto, guilty of criminal breach of trust; but something more than that is required to bring home the dishonest intention. There should be some indication which justifies a finding that the accused definitely had the intention of wrongfully keeping the Government out of the money. Where, under the rules, a public servant is required to lodge in the treasury, any Government money, in excess of that shown due to Government by the registers in his hands and the public servant removes the excess from the office cash-box, he is guilty of misappropriation. 26. Both Section 409 IPC so far as public servant is concerned and Section 13(1)(c) Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, which is a verbatim reproduction of Section 5(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 run on the same track. 27. Here the accused in his capacity as a public servant was entrusted with 120 quintals of levy sugar, as evident from Ext.P2 and Ext.P9(f) and obtained domain over the same and committed breach of trust without entering the same in the stock register Ext.P5 and also making the same as part of the stock, as deposed by PW1 and PW2. Thus the ingredients to attract Section 409 of IPC have been proved by the prosecution, beyond reasonable doubt. 28. Thus the ingredients to attract Section 409 of IPC have been proved by the prosecution, beyond reasonable doubt. 28. In the decision reported in [2025 KHC OnLine 806 : 2025 KHC 806 : 2025 KER 55049 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2504], Mathew K.M v. State of Kerala , referring paragraph 14 of the decision in Vijayakumar K. v. State of Kerala reported in 2016 KHC 635 : 2016 (4) KHC SN 30 : 2016 (2) KLD 498 : 2016 (4) KLT SN 76, this Court held that, once it is proved by the prosecution that there was entrustment and there was no proper accounting of the amount entrusted, then the burden shifts to the accused to prove that there was no misappropriation and explain the irregularities found in the disbursement. Further if entrustment is proved and explanation given by the accused is not satisfactory or there was no proper explanation, then it can be presumed that the accused had committed the offence of criminal breach of trust and misappropriation. The modus operandi of the accused, how he committed the misappropriation etc. need not be proved by the prosecution. The fraudulent intention of the accused can be inferred only from the attending circumstances and those things cannot be proved by the prosecution by direct evidence and it has to be inferred from the circumstantial evidence adduced by the accused on this aspect. The same ingredients of criminal breach of trust and misappropriation have to be proved by the prosecution for convicting the accused for the offences under Section 13(1)(c) of the P.C Act, 1988 as well. The same ingredients of criminal breach of trust and misappropriation have to be proved by the prosecution for convicting the accused for the offences under Section 13(1)(c) of the P.C Act, 1988 as well. This was so held in the decisions reported in Jaikrishnadas Manohardas Desai and another v. State of Bombay , 1960 KHC 694: AIR 1960 SC 889 : 1960 (3) SCR 319 : 1960 CriLJ 1250, Krishan Kumar v. Union of India , 1959 KHC 635: AIR 1959 SC 1390 : 1960 (1) SCR 452 1959 CriL) 1508, State of Kerala v. Vasudevan Namboodiri , 1987 KHC 518: 1987(2) KLT 541 : 1987 KLJ 270 : 1987(1) KLT SN 7, Bagga Singh v. State of Punjab , 1996 KHC 3288: 1996 CriLJ 2883, Vishwa Nath v. State of J & K. , 1983 KHC 420 : AIR 1983 SC 174 : 1983 (1) SCC 215 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 173 : 1983 CriLJ 231, Om Nath Puri v. State of Rajasthan , 1972 KHC 414 : AIR 1972 SC 1490 : 1972 (1) SCC 630 : 1972 SCC (Cri) 359 1972 (3) SCR 497 : 1972 CriLJ 897, T. Ratnadas v. State of Kerala , 1999 KHC 2074 : 1999 CriLJ 1488, State of Rajasthan v. Kesar Singh , 1969 CriLJ 1595, Roshan Lal Raina v. State of Jammu & Kashmir , 1983 CriLJ 975 and Raghavan K. v. State of Kerala , 2012 KHC 420 . 29. Section 477A of IPC deals with `Falsification of accounts’, wherein it has been provided that 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 record, 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. In the instant case even though on receipt of 120 quintals of levy sugar the accused was duty bound to enter the same in the records, he omitted to do the same and in turn the said 120 quintals of sugar corresponding to Rs.1,02,000/- was misappropriated by him. Therefore the learned Special Judge is justified in holding that the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 477A of IPC. In the above backdrop, misappropriation dealt under Section 13(1)(c) read with 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 also proved by the prosecution. Since the prosecution evidence categorically established the offences committed by the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the conviction imposed on the accused is not liable to be interfered with and thus the conviction is liable to be confirmed. 30. Coming to the sentence, the same can be modified considering the request of the learned counsel for the appellant. Punishment provided for the offence punishable under Section 477A of IPC is a term which may extend to 7 years or with fine or with both. Similarly for the offence punishable under Section 409 of IPC, the accused shall be punished with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine. For the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(c) of the PC Act, 1988 the punishment provided under Section 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 shall not be less than one year and also liable to fine. Having considered the above aspect, I am inclined to reduce the sentence. 31. In the result, the Appeal stands allowed in part. The conviction imposed by the Special Court is confirmed, but the sentence stands modified as under: “(1) The appellant/accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.1 lakh for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(c) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. (2) The appellant/accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.1 lakh for the offence punishable under Section 409 of IPC, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. (3) The appellant/accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 477A of IPC. (4) The substantive sentences shall run concurrently and the default sentences shall run separately. 32. (3) The appellant/accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 477A of IPC. (4) The substantive sentences shall run concurrently and the default sentences shall run separately. 32. The order suspending execution of sentence to the accused stands vacated with direction to him to appear before the Special Court forthwith, without fail, to undergo the modified sentence. On failure to do so by the accused, the Special Court is directed to execute the modified sentence without fail. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kottayam, for compliance and further steps.