ORDER :

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Criminal Appeal No. 387 of 2001, dated 29.12.2008. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has confirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court for the offences punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "the IPC") and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the appellant was working as a Junior Engineer, Irrigation and Public Health Department, Thanadhar Section from 1978 to 1980. He was overseeing the execution of several water supply schemes in the Section under his charge and was also entrusted with articles stored in the Section. He was transferred in October, 1980 and handed over charge to another Junior Engineer. At that time, a list of material stored was prepared and signed by the appellant. It was discovered that there was a shortage in the material stored of the value of Rs.23,045.13/-. An audit was conducted in 1983-1984, and it was discovered that the total shortfall was of the value of Rs.1,09,861.30/-. The appellant was unable to account for the shortages. Thereupon, the police registered a First Information Report against the appellant on 03.03.1989 under Sections 409 of the IPC and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Upon the completion of investigation and grant of sanction for prosecution, a charge sheet was filed against the appellant.

3. Thereafter, the appellant appeared before the Trial Court and after both sides were heard, charges were framed against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 409 of the IPC and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The charges were read over and explained to the appellant who pleaded not guilty. Accordingly, the case was committed to Trial.

4. In order to substantiate the charges framed against the appellant, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses. After the completion of prosecution evidence, the statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code"). No evidence was led in defense.

5. Upon detailed consideration of the evidence on record and submissions of the learned counsels for the parties, by judgment and order dated 30.06.2001, the Trial Court found the appellant to be guilty of the offence punishable under Section 409 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, along with payment of fine of Rs.2,000/-, and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Further, the Trial Court convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, along with payment of fine of Rs.2,000/-, and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.

6. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of the Trial Court, the appellant preferred an appeal before the High Court. Upon a detailed consideration of the submissions of the parties and also the evidence on record including the judgments and orders passed by the Courts below, the High Court found no reason to interfere with the judgment and order of the Trial Court and confirmed the order of conviction and sentence for the offences under Section 409 of the IPC and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

7. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order passed by the High Court, the appellant is before us in this appeal.

8. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties to the lis.

9. Mr. Ashok Mathur, the learned counsel for the appellant, would assail the judgment and order passed by the High Court and submit that for the offence punishable under Section 409 of the IPC to be made out there must be 'dishonest misappropriation'. Mere shortfall in material stor