JUDGMENT A. BADHARUDEEN, J. 1. The sole accused in C.C. No.15/2016 on the files of the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thalassery, has filed this appeal, under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , challenging the conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Judge, against him as per the judgment dated 21.08.2018. The State of Kerala, represented by the Public Prosecutor is arrayed as the sole respondent herein. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor, in detail. Perused the verdict under challenge and the records of the Special Court. 3. Parties in this appeal shall be referred as ‘accused’ and ‘prosecution’, hereafter. 4. In this matter, the prosecution case is that, the accused, who was entrusted with the duty to distribute wages for unemployed persons under social welfare scheme by the Government (wages of unemployment), while working as public servant in his capacity as Upper Division Clerk in Payyannur Municipal office, abused his official position and committed criminal misconduct by misappropriating a total sum of Rs.40,400/- without distributing the same to the beneficiaries by forging the documents and falsifying the accounts. According to the prosecution, the accused misappropriated an amount of Rs.25,200/- being the unemployment wages of the beneficiaries shown as CW28 to CW70, while distributing the wages for the period from December, 1998 to May, 1999 on 10.04.2000, 11.04.2000 and 12.04.2000 respectively and an amount of Rs.15,200/- being the unemployment wage of the beneficiaries shown as CW1, CW28, CW41, CW47 to CW66 while distributing the wages for the period from June, 1999 to November, 1999 at the rate of 600 per beneficiaries on 07.09.2000 and 08.09.2000 respectively (totaling to Rs.40,400/-) by forging the signatures in the Acquittance Register and also falsifying the accounts. Thus, the accused committed criminal misconduct by abusing his official position as public servant and obtained pecuniary advantage by corrupt means and also forged documents, intending that the same shall be used for the purpose of cheating. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 13 (1)(c) and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred as ‘P.C. Act’ for short] and under Sections 409 , 420, 465, 471 and 477(A) of the Indian Penal Code [hereinafter referred ‘IPC’ for short], by the accused. 5. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 13 (1)(c) and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred as ‘P.C. Act’ for short] and under Sections 409 , 420, 465, 471 and 477(A) of the Indian Penal Code [hereinafter referred ‘IPC’ for short], by the accused. 5. After framing charge, the Special Court recorded evidence and completed trial. During trial, PWs 1 to 56 were examined and Exts.P1 to 33 were marked on the side of the prosecution. Even though, the accused was given opportunity to adduce defence evidence after questioning him under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C , he did not opt to adduce any defence evidence. 6. On appreciation of evidence, the Special Court found that the accused was guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 13 (1)(c) and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the P.C. Act as well as under Sections 409 and 471 of the IPC and he was acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 465 , 467, 420 and 477(A) of the IPC. Accordingly, the accused was convicted for the said offences and sentenced as under: a) Accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years (two years) and to pay fine of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) and in default of payment of fine to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 (three) months for the offence punishable u/s 13 (1) (c) r/w 13 (2) of P.C Act. b) Accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 2 years (two years) and to pay fine of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) and in default of payment of fine to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) months for the offence punishable u/s 13 (1) (d) r/w 13 (2) of P.C Act. c) Accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 2 years (two years) and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) and in default of payment of fine to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) months for the offence punishable u/s 409 IPC. d) Accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 2 years (two years) and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) and in default of payment of fine to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) months for the offence punishable u/s. 471 IPC. d) Accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 2 years (two years) and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) and in default of payment of fine to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) months for the offence punishable u/s. 471 IPC. e) The sentences shall run concurrently as contemplated u/s. 427 Cr.P.C . It is made clear that default sentence shall not be affected by this direction. f) Set off is allowed as contemplated u/s. 428 Cr.P.C . g) The bail bond executed by the accused stands cancelled. 7. While canvasing the acquittal of the accused, the learned counsel for the accused argued that, in this case the prosecution evidence by itself is insufficient to hold that the accused committed the offences alleged by the prosecution. According to him, even though the prosecution allegation is that, PWs 1, 12, 14 to 49 and the close relatives of PWs 50 to 52 did not receive the amount entitled by them, being the wages of unemployment, the criminal culpability could not be fastened upon the accused. According to the learned counsel for the accused, even though above persons gave evidence that they did not receive the amount, when tracing the procedure followed in the matter of disbursement of the amount, it could be gathered that the procedure is to give the amount of the persons, who reaches the office with the original employment registration card and the postal card sent to them intimating the release of the amount. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused that, if somebody other than PWs 1, 12, 14 to 49 and the close relatives of PWs 50 to 52, came along with their employment registration card and the postal card, identifying the person, who brought the same based on two documents, the amount would be given. Therefore, in this matter, it could not be ruled out that, if somebody impersonated the above persons and collected the money. Therefore, in this matter, it could not be ruled out that, if somebody impersonated the above persons and collected the money. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused that, even though the prosecution has given much emphasis to Exts.P2(g) signed statement given by the accused to PW11, admitting the misrepresentation and also repaying Rs.1,434/- towards Rs.1,200/-, he misappropriated as that of PW1 and also agreeing to refund the amount to all other 16 persons similarly misappropriated, the same is not a genuine document and it was prepared after getting the signature of the accused in blank papers, with a view to implicate him in this case. Thus, the argument of the learned counsel for the accused is that, since the prosecution case is not free from doubt and the verdict impugned would require interference. 8. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that, going by the evidence of PW3 supported by PWs 4, 6 and other witnesses, entrustment of the money to the accused to disburse the same to the beneficiaries is established. Then, it is for the accused to account for the money and merely on entrustment of the same, the ingredients attracting the offence under Section 409 of IPC are established, unless the accused could satisfactorily account for the money which was entrusted to him. It is pointed out further that, as regards to Ext.P2(g), the accused voluntarily signed the confession and given to PW11, similar to that of Ext.P2(d). Apart from that, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, Ext.P2(f) is the Enquiry Report finding misappropriation of the amount by the accused reported by PW11, which also would substantiate the prosecution case. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the accused contending that, the accused disbursed the amount to the persons, who approached him with employment registration card and the postal card is not at all believable, as the cards must be in possession of the concerned persons. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, here the entrustment of money is established and no explanation given by the accused to justify how the amount was disbursed and the parties to whom the wages ought to have given emphatically denied receipt of the amount. Then, it is the duty of the accused, who got entrustment of amount to account for the same. Then, it is the duty of the accused, who got entrustment of amount to account for the same. It is also submitted that, since the prosecution evidence satisfactorily proved the ingredients for the offences alleged, the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Special Judge do not require any interference. 9. In view of the rival submissions, the questions arise for consideration are: 1. Whether the Special Court is justified in finding that the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 13 (1)(c) read with 13(2) of the P.C. Act, 1988? 2. Whether the Special Court is justified in finding that the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 13 (1)(d) read with 13(2) of the P.C. Act, 1988? 3. Whether the Special Court is justified in finding that the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 409 of the IPC? 4. Whether the Special Court is justified in finding that the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 471 of the IPC? 5. Whether the verdict of the Special Court would require interference? 6. Order to be passed? 10. Point Nos.1 to 4:- In order to address these questions, it is necessary to evaluate the evidence, in this case. PW1 is the lady who happened to be the cause for the detection of the crime alleged in this case. She had deposed that on 24.11.1994, while doing her pre-degree course, she registered her name in Employment Exchange, Payyannur. After completing B.Com degree course, she had applied for the wages of unemployment. She had identified that application as Ext.P1. Later, when she passed her Teachers Training course, she approached the Employment Exchange, Taliparamba for registering that certificate also. At that time they demanded the certificate from Payyannur Municipality regarding the non-receipt of wages of unemployment. Accordingly she preferred Ext.P2(a) application before Payyannur Municipality. But it was informed from that office that no such certificate could be issued as she had already received the wages of unemployment. On enquiry she came to know that somebody had obtained wages of employment in her name twice. Then, she preferred Ext.P2 (b) complaint before the Secretary, Payyannur Municipality. On enquiry on that complaint, it was realized that PW1 did not receive the wages and accordingly such a certificate was issued to her. On enquiry she came to know that somebody had obtained wages of employment in her name twice. Then, she preferred Ext.P2 (b) complaint before the Secretary, Payyannur Municipality. On enquiry on that complaint, it was realized that PW1 did not receive the wages and accordingly such a certificate was issued to her. She had further deposed that, the signatures against her name in page Nos.21 and 46 of the Distribution Register of wages of unemployment were not her signatures and she didn't sign the Distribution Register. 11. PW2 was the then Police Constable attached to Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Kannur Unit. He had deposed that, the investigating officer had seized Ext.P4- the Distribution Register of wages of unemployment maintained in the Municipal Office, Payyannur for the period from January, 1998 to March, 2000. Ext.P5, the Acquittance Register maintained in Payyannur Municipality for the period from June, 1998 to March,2000, Exts.P6 and P7 fully vouchered contingent bills, as per the Ext.P3 seizure mahazar. He had identified his signature in Ext.P8, seizure mahazar prepared by the then investigator, while effecting seizure of Ext.P9 Treasury Pass Book, Ext. 10 joining report and Ext.P11 relieving order of the accused from the Secretary, Payyannur Municipality. He had identified his signature in Ext.P12 seizure mahazar prepared while effecting the seizure of Ext. P13, the attested copy of service book also. 12. PW3 was the Secretary, Payyannur Municipality during the period from July, 1999 to December, 2000. He had identified Ext.P14 as the file regarding the disbursement of wages of unemployment maintained in Payyannur Municipality. He would depose that as per Ext.P14 (a), he had sanctioned an amount of Rs.5,10,000/- for distributing the wages for the payment towards the unemployed. As per Ext.P14(b), the District Employment Officer had allotted an amount of Rs.5,76,000/- to Payyannur Municipality for the payment of wages of unemployment for the period from December, 1998 to May, 1999. He had further stated that as per the Ext.P14(a) proceedings, contingent bills for Rs.5,10,000/- was submitted for disbursement of wages on 10.04.2000, 11.04.2000 and 12.04.2000 respectively. According to him the endorsements of both himself and accused were there in Ext.P14(a) and accused was in-charge of the section concerned. Subsequently the said amount was withdrawn by two cheques as evidenced by Ext.P15 (a) and P15 (b) respectively. According to him the endorsements of both himself and accused were there in Ext.P14(a) and accused was in-charge of the section concerned. Subsequently the said amount was withdrawn by two cheques as evidenced by Ext.P15 (a) and P15 (b) respectively. He has identified Ext.P14(c) as his proceedings deputing the accused and other three staff members to disburse the wages of unemployment. He had further deposed that at the time of disbursing the amount, the signatures of the beneficiaries should be obtained in the Acquittance Register and that signatures should be initialed by clerk distributing the amount. 13. PW4 was the UD Clerk in-charge of the Account Section in Payyannur Municipality, during 2000-2007. He would state that accused was UD Clerk in his office at that time and he was in-charge of the section dealing with the Social Security Pensions. He had produced Ext.P18 cash book for the period from 1998-1999 to 2002-2003 and Ext.P19 petty cash book for the period from 03.04.1999 to 26.09.2000, before the investigator as per Ext.P17 seizure mahazar. As per Exts. P18(a) and P18 (b), the then Secretary had handed over two cheques in connection with wages of unemployment to the cashier and as per Ext.P19(a) the refund of an amount of Rs.1,400/- was entrusted to the accused. The entries regarding the distribution of wages of unemployment should have been made in petty cash book. In Exts.P6 and P7, there were entries with signature regarding the receipt of cheques. If that was received by the cashier there should have been corresponding entries in petty cash book. ?? had also deposed that the balance amount should be remitted in Treasury through challan. 14. PW5 was the then Health Inspector, Payyannur Municipality. According to him as per the direction of the Secretary, he had conducted enquiry regarding the applications for wages of unemployment in Vellur village for three days in the year 1999. ?? had met the applicants personally and verified their documents as part of the enquiry. After the enquiry he gave the list of eligible candidates to the accused who was manning the pertinent section. PW6 to PW8 were the then Officials in Payyannur Municipality, who were deputed by the Secretary for disbursement of wages of unemployment. According to them accused was in-charge of that section and they were deputed for assisting him. After the enquiry he gave the list of eligible candidates to the accused who was manning the pertinent section. PW6 to PW8 were the then Officials in Payyannur Municipality, who were deputed by the Secretary for disbursement of wages of unemployment. According to them accused was in-charge of that section and they were deputed for assisting him. They also deposed that they only verified the identity of the applicants and remaining things including the disbursement of money to the beneficiaries after obtaining their signatures in the Distribution Register were done by the accused himself. 15. PW9 was the then Junior Employment Officer, Employment Exchange, Taliparamba. According to him on 20.07.2004, he had produced Ext.P1 and Ext. Pl1(a) to P1(o) (15 in numbers), the applications for the wages of unemployment received in his office from Payyannur Village, Ext. P21 (a) to P21 (n), the applications from Vellur Village and Ext.P22(a) to P22 (m) the applications from Korom Village, before the investigator under Ext.P20 seizure mahazar. He would further state that on 13.10.2004, he had produced Ext.P22 (n), the application of one Preeja in Korom Village also before the investigator as per Ext.P23 seizure mahazar. 16. PW10 was the then Employment Officer (placement), in Employment Office, Kannur. He would state that the then Employment Officer had forwarded the complaint received from PW1 to the effect that, she didn't receive wages of unemployment from Taliparamba Employment Exchange, to the District Collector. Subsequently, as per the direction of the District Employment Officer, he had conducted enquiry on that complaint on 31.01.2002 and submitted his report of enquiry before the District Employment Officer. He would further state that as part of the enquiry, he had verified documents such as application for wages, Acquittance Register etc. and it was found that PW1's signature in her application form as well as in the Acquittance Register were different. He had further deposed that the said complaint was against accused who was the then Section Clerk. Later the Secretary informed that the disputed amount was remitted by accused. 17. PW11 was the Superintendent, Payyannur Municipality during the period from 01.01.2001 to 18.03.2003. He had deposed that PW1 preferred Ext.P2(a) application for the issuance of the certificate of non-receipt of wages of unemployment. He had identified his initial on that application. He had also identified the file maintained in his office in connection with that application as Ext.P2. 17. PW11 was the Superintendent, Payyannur Municipality during the period from 01.01.2001 to 18.03.2003. He had deposed that PW1 preferred Ext.P2(a) application for the issuance of the certificate of non-receipt of wages of unemployment. He had identified his initial on that application. He had also identified the file maintained in his office in connection with that application as Ext.P2. He forwarded that application to the section concerned for report and from the section, it was reported that she had already received the wages of unemployment. But, PW1 asserted that, she didn't receive any amount towards wages of unemployment. She also denied the signature in Acquittance Register. So, he informed the matter to the Secretary, who reported the same to the Employment Officer. Accused was the Clerk in charge of the relevant section during that period. He had also stated that before receiving Ext.P2 (a) application, accused was transferred to Kottayam. 18. Accordingly Ext.P2 (c) memo was issued to the accused seeking his explanation and in pursuance of the same accused appeared before him on 22.03.2002 and furnished an explanation to the effect that, it was a mistake on his part due to the heavy work load and he was ready to refund that amount. He had identified Ext.P2(d) as that explanation furnished by the accused. He had further stated that, as submitted in the statement accused had remitted the amount of Rs.1,434/-, the amount with interest in the Government through Treasury. He had identified Ext.P2(e) as the challan receipt. Thereafter, he addressed the Employment Officer and Director for conducting an enquiry and as per the order of Municipal Secretary dated 31.01.2002. He was appointed as enquiry officer and hence he conducted an enquiry and furnished the report. He had identified the statement of the accused recorded by him in the enquiry and the report of enquiry as Ext.P2(f) and P2(g) respectively. In the enquiry it was realized that accused had misappropriated the amount to be disbursed to PW1 by forging her signature in the records. 19. PW13 was the Secretary, Payyannur Municipality, during the period from 15.12.2002 to 16.06.2003. According to him accused was U.D. Clerk during his tenure. He also gave similar version as that of PW11 regarding Ext. P2 (a) application and subsequent events. He had identified Ext.P2 (f) as the enquiry report furnished by PW11. 19. PW13 was the Secretary, Payyannur Municipality, during the period from 15.12.2002 to 16.06.2003. According to him accused was U.D. Clerk during his tenure. He also gave similar version as that of PW11 regarding Ext. P2 (a) application and subsequent events. He had identified Ext.P2 (f) as the enquiry report furnished by PW11. PW32 is the then U.D. Clerk, Payyannur Municipality, who also accompanied PW5, for the verification of application received for wages of unemployment. He was also deputed to assist accused for distributing the wages. According to him accused was the person who distributed the amount and obtained signatures in the register. 20. PW12 and PW14 to PW49 were the beneficiaries who applied for wages of unemployment. All of them have stated that they didn't receive the wages. They denied having signed in Ext.P4 Distribution Register and Ext.P5, Acquittance Register. They also identified Ext.P1 series, P21 series and P22 series as the respective applications filed by them. PW50, PW51, PW52 were the close relatives of the beneficiaries, who preferred Ext.P1 (l), P22 (j) and P22 (b) applications respectively. They also deposed that the said applicants also didn't obtain the wages. 21. PW53 was the then Director of Urban Affairs, Thiruvananthapuram, who granted sanction to prosecute the accused on 31.08.2005. It was through him the sanction order issued by him got marked as Ext.P24. According to him, he granted the sanction only after applying his mind through relevant records and he having authority to remove the accused from office during the relevant period. No challenge raised by the learned counsel for the accused as regards the sanction. 22. PW54 was the then Inspector, Vigilance and Anti- Corruption Bureau, Kannur Unit. According to him, the FIR in this case was registered by the then Dy.S.P. Ramraj on 27.06.2003. He had identified that FIR as Ext.P25. He conducted part of the investigation and questioned PW1, PW2, PW14 to PW19, PW28 to PW30, CW3, CW32 and CW42 and seized Ext. P4 to P7 under Ext.P3 seizure mahazar. PW55 was the then Inspector, who conducted part of the investigation. He questioned some of the witnesses and seized Exts. P2, P14 to P16, Ext. P27- the minutes register of Municipal Council, Payyannur, Ext.P28 the Acquittance Register, Ext.P29 (series) the applications for wages of unemployment in Vellur village, Ext. P4 to P7 under Ext.P3 seizure mahazar. PW55 was the then Inspector, who conducted part of the investigation. He questioned some of the witnesses and seized Exts. P2, P14 to P16, Ext. P27- the minutes register of Municipal Council, Payyannur, Ext.P28 the Acquittance Register, Ext.P29 (series) the applications for wages of unemployment in Vellur village, Ext. P30(series), the application from Payyannur village, and Ext.P31 to P33 the list of eligible beneficiaries for wages in Payyannur, Vellur and Korom village under Ext.P26 seizure mahazar respectively. 23. PW56 was the then Inspector, VACB, Kannur, who conducted the remaining investigation and as part of the investigation, he questioned PW3 to PW13, PW20 to PW27 and PW31 to PW52, recorded their statements and seized Ext.P18 and P19 documents under Ext.P17 seizure mahazar, Exts.P1 series, P21 series and P22 series under Ext.P20 seizure mahazar and seized Exts.P9 to P11, P12, P13 and P22 documents under Ext.P8 seizure mahazar respectively. The charge sheet in this case, according to him was filed by CW76, the then Dy.S.P., Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Kannur Unit. 24. The Special Court found that by the evidence of PWs 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11 and 13 coupled with Exts.P10, P11 and P13, the prosecution case that the accused worked as UD Clerk at the Municipal Office, Payyannur has been proved. On scrutiny of the evidence, this observations is found to be correct. Ext.P10 is the proceedings of the Secretary of the Payyannur Municipality, as per which the accused took charge as UD Clerk at the Municipal Office on 17.12.1999 and was directed to take charge of H1 section in that office. Thereafter, the accused took charge of H1 section and as per Ext.P11 proceedings dated 11.09.2001, the accused was relieved from that office on 11.01.2001. Apart from that, Ext.P13, the service book of the accused would also show that he worked in the Municipal Office, Payyanur, as contended by the prosecution. Therefore, the Special Judge is right in holding that the prosecution successfully proved the status of the accused as a public servant as defined under Section 2(c) of the P.C. Act as well as under Section 21 of the IPC. As regards the sanction to prosecute the accused is concerned, PW53 was examined and Ext.P24 sanction was proved. No challenge raised as regards the sanction. Ext.P24 would depict that sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C . also was given. 25. As regards the sanction to prosecute the accused is concerned, PW53 was examined and Ext.P24 sanction was proved. No challenge raised as regards the sanction. Ext.P24 would depict that sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C . also was given. 25. In this matter, the prosecution allegation is that, the total amount of Rs.40,400/- was misappropriated by the accused, which ought to have been given to PWs 1, 12, 14 to 49 and the close relatives of PWs 50 to 52. The prosecution examined PW3 and other officers of the Municipality as extracted above to prove that the accused was in charge of disbursement of wages of unemployment and undertook the duty of verification of the identity of the beneficiaries. The accused also did not dispute the said aspect, even though the learned counsel for the accused contended that apart from the accused, other persons working in the office also were deputed to assist him. PW4, who held the charge of the Account Section deposed that, the accused was the UD Clerk at Payyanur Municipal Office and held the charge of section dealing with social security pensions. According to PW5, the Health Inspector during the relevant period, who was deputed for conducting enquiry regarding the application for wages of unemployment in Vellur Village had testified before the Court that, after conducting enquiry he gave the list of eligible candidates to the accused. Similarly, PWs 6 to 8 and 32, the other staff members of the Municipal office, who were deputed by the Secretary for disbursement of wages of unemployment categorically deposed that, the accused was in charge of the section and they were deputed to assist him. They also had given evidence that, they simply verified the identity of the applicants and remaining things, including the disbursement of money to the beneficiaries after obtaining their signatures in the Distribution Register were done by the accused himself. 26. The learned Special Judge found that, though PWs 6 to 8 and 32 were subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing extracted to disbelieve their versions. The Special Court found that the above witnesses had no reasons to give evidence against the accused. 27. 26. The learned Special Judge found that, though PWs 6 to 8 and 32 were subjected to searching cross-examination, nothing extracted to disbelieve their versions. The Special Court found that the above witnesses had no reasons to give evidence against the accused. 27. Ext.P2(b) is the complaint lodged by PW1 stating that she did not receive the amount towards the wages of unemployment and when she applied for getting a certificate regarding non receipt of the wages of unemployment as per Ext.P2(a), it was informed from the office that no such certificate could be issued as she had already received the wages of unemployment. PW11 conducted enquiry on Ext.P2(a) complaint and Ext.P2 report was filed. Ext.P2(c) memo was issued to the accused and Ext.P2(d) explanation has been furnished by the accused. In Ext.P2(d), the accused stated that the entries in the Distribution Register and the Acquittance Register marked as Exts.P4 and P5 showing receipt of wages by PW1 was occurred by mistake on account of heavy work load and subsequently and he was ready to refund the said amount. Subsequently, as per Ext.P2(e) challan receipt he had refunded Rs.1,434/- including interest. 28. According to PW11, during his enquiry, the accused given Ext.P2(g) statement admitting the misappropriation and Ext.P2(f) is the report of the enquiry. As per Ext.P2(f) it was reported that the accused had misappropriated the amount of 16 other persons. In Ext.P2(g) the accused admitted the misappropriation as alleged and agreed to repay the same. The facts remain is that, the other amounts not at all repaid as admitted by the accused in Ext.P2(g). Apart from the evidence of PWs 1 to 56 and the documents, the learned Special Judge given evidence to Ext.P2(g) treating the same as admission equivalent to confession under Section 21 of the Evidence Act. 29. Regarding Ext.P2(g), the accused raised contention before the Special Court that he did not given such a statement and the same was fabricated by PW11. The learned Special Judge addressed the said contention and negatived the same mainly for the reason that, PW11, who was none other than the colleague of the accused as well as a person haling from the locality of the accused had no reason to create a false statement against the accused. The learned Special Judge addressed the said contention and negatived the same mainly for the reason that, PW11, who was none other than the colleague of the accused as well as a person haling from the locality of the accused had no reason to create a false statement against the accused. It was observed by the special Judge further that, on reading Ext.P2(g) statement, the same is explanatory to what had been stated in Ext.P2(d) his earlier statement, the explanation given by the accused for Ext.P2(c) memo. Although, this contention was reiterated by the learned counsel for the accused, for the reasons stated by the learned Special Judge, this argument could not be productive. In this connection, it is relevant to observe that, the story that the accused gave a signed blank paper to PW11, who has found a serious allegation of misappropriation is not digestible to prudence. That apart, if at all any blank signed paper was obtained by PW11, the accused might have registered a complaint to the higher authorities in this regard. Till date, no complaint raised in this regard, apart from contending so before the Special Court and this court. Therefore, the challenge against Ext.P2(g) by the accused is not acceptable. 30. In this matter, as already pointed out, PWs 1, 12, 14 to 49 deposed that their signatures found in Exts.P4 and P5 Acquittance Registers were not that of them. Similarly, PWs 50 to 52, who are the close relatives of the beneficiaries, who preferred Exts.P1(l), P1(j) and P2(b) applications respectively deposed that their relatives did not receive the wages of unemployment. 31. On reappreciation of evidence, it is discernible that the accused held the charge of the section distributing wages for unemployed persons as seen from Ext.P14(a) proceedings. As per Ext.P14(b), the District Employment Officer had allotted an amount of Rs.5,76,000/- as deposed by PW3 and out of the same Rs.5,10,000/- was entrusted to the accused. Ext.P14(a) supported by the evidence of PW3 would justify the said entrustment. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the accused that there was no entrustment of the amount found to be unsustainable. 32. In this connection, it is necessary to refer the ingredients to attract offence under Section 409 of IPC. Section 409 of IPC is extracted as hereunder: “ 409. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the accused that there was no entrustment of the amount found to be unsustainable. 32. In this connection, it is necessary to refer the ingredients to attract offence under Section 409 of IPC. Section 409 of IPC is extracted as hereunder: “ 409. Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent: 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.” 33. Section 409 is pari materia to Section 316(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (`BNS’ for short) and Section 316(5) of BNS reads as under: “316: Criminal breach of trust: 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.” 34. Analysing the ingredients to attract offence under Section 409 of IPC, its applicability is as held by the Apex Court in [ (2012) 8 SCC 547 : AIR 2012 SC 3242 ], Sadhupati Nageswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 35. In Sadhupati Nageswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh ’s case (supra), the Apex Court, while upholding the conviction held that, where the appellant, an agent entrusted with the distribution of the rice under the “Food for Work Scheme” to the workers on production of coupons, was charged with misappropriation of 67.65 quintals of rice, the evidence proves that there was entrustment of property to the accused. 36. 36. In order to sustain a conviction under Section 409 of the IPC, two ingredients are to be proved; namely, (i) the accused, a public servant or a banker or agent was entrusted with the property of which he is duty bound to account for; and (ii) the accused has committed criminal breach of trust. What amounts to criminal breach of trust is provided under Section 405 IPC. The basic requirements to bring home the accusation under Section 405 IPC are to prove conjointly; (i) entrustment and (ii) whether the accused was actuated by a dishonest intention or not, misappropriated it or converted it to his own use or to the detriment of the persons who entrusted it, as held by the Apex Court in the decision reported in Sadhupati Nageswara Ra v. State of Andhra Pradesh ’s case (supra). 37. The gravamen of the offence under Section 409 of IPC 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. Section 409 of IPC 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. 38. Here, the other offence found by learned Special Judge is the use of forged document as genuine punishable under Section 471 of IPC. Thus, the law is settled on the point that when the accused, in his capacity as public servant got entrustment over a property of any dominion, is bound to account for the property or the amount entrusted, if there is allegation that the same was misappropriated. 39. In the instant case, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the accused is that, somebody might have impersonated PWs 1, 12, 14 to 49 and the close relatives of PWs 50 to 52 and the accused mistakenly gave the wages of unemployment to them. 39. In the instant case, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the accused is that, somebody might have impersonated PWs 1, 12, 14 to 49 and the close relatives of PWs 50 to 52 and the accused mistakenly gave the wages of unemployment to them. This contention itself would indicate that the accused got entrustment of the amount, but not disbursed the same to PWs 1, 12, 14 to 49 and the close relatives of PWs 50 to 52. However, this contention could not be digestible even for a moment, as the procedure spoken by the competent witnesses, as discussed hereinabove would show that in order to pay the amount, the beneficiaries should come with the original employment registration card and the postal card issued to them intimating the release of the amount. Impersonating 41 persons (PWs, 1, 12, 14 to 49 and the relatives of PWs 50 to 52) by producing their original employment registration cards is an outright impossibility. As regards to the contention raised by the learned counsel for the accused that, there were also other officers deputed in the section to assist the accused, is concerned, their evidence is that they had verified the candidate details with identity cards and sent them to get the money after getting signatures in Aquittance Register, from the accused. Thus, it appears that, in this case, the accused who got custody of the money misappropriated the money by falsifying their signatures in the Aquittance Register. Further, it is impossible for impersonating a large number of people, viz. PWs 1,12, 14 to 49 and the close relatives of PWs 50 to 52, by producing the original employment cards and the postal cards sent to them, as the same, in fact, would be in the exclusive possession of the said persons and PWs 1, 12, 14 to 49 and the close relatives of PWs 50 to 52 had emphatically denied having received any amount towards wages of unemployment. 40. According to the learned counsel for the accused, when going through the signatures in Ext.P5, the Aquittance Register, the same are having similarity with the signatures of the persons, who denied having received the amount and it is not possible for the accused to put even forged signatures with similarity, because the accused could not have any option to get actual signatures of them. This argument found to be so unrealistic, since the prosecution proved that Exts.P21 to 21(n) and Exts.P22 to 22(n) are the applications submitted by the applicants with their signatures, for getting wages for unemployment. Therefore, it is easy for the accused to put signatures in the Acquittance Register similar to that of the signatures put by the applicants in the said applications, so as to bag the money without the junction of any others, after getting entrustment of the same. Thus, this Court is of the strong view that, in this context, the learned Special Court is right in holding that the accused committed the offences punishable under Sections 13 (1)(c) and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the P.C. Act as well as under Sections 409 and 471 of the IPC. Therefore, the conviction imposed by the learned Special Judge finding commission of the above said offences by the accused does not require any interference. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the view that some leniency in the matter of sentence can be considered. 41. Point Nos.5 and 6:- In the result, this appeal stands allowed in part. The conviction imposed by the Special Judge is confirmed. In the interest of justice, I am inclined to modify the sentence. The sentence imposed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 13 (1)(c) and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the P.C. Act as well as under Sections 409 and 471 of the IPC is modified as under: i. The accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year (one year) and to pay fine of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) and in default of payment of fine to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 (three) months for the offence punishable under Section 13 (1) (c) read with 13 (2) of P.C Act. ii. The accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 1 year (one year) and to pay fine of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) and in default of payment of fine to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) months for the offence punishable under Section 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of P.C Act. iii. The accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 1 year (one year) and to pay fine of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) and in default of payment of fine to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) months for the offence punishable under Section 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of P.C Act. iii. The accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 1 year (one year) and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) and in default of payment of fine to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) months for the offence punishable under Section 409 IPC. iv. The accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 1 years (one years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) and in default of payment of fine to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) months for the offence punishable under Section 471 IPC. v. The substantive sentence shall run concurrently and the default sentence shall run separately, after the substantive sentence. vi. The period of detention undergone by the accused in this case will be set off against the substantive sentence of imprisonment. 42. The order suspending sentence and granting bail to the accused stands vacated, with direction to the accused to appear before the Special Court, forthwith, to undergo the modified sentence, failing which, the Special Court is directed to execute the sentence, without fail. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the Special Court, forthwith, for information and compliance.