ORDER

T. Govindarajan, J.—This Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the judgment dated 30.6.2005 made in Criminal A. No. 139 of 2003 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Trichirappalli, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the Judicial Magistrate No. 5, Trichirappalli.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

The accused (A2), who was working as a Cashier in R.766, Kattur Primary Cooperative Agricultural Bank between the years 1996 and 1998, along with its President and Secretary, with the criminal conspiracy cheated the Bank thereby causing wrongful loss to the tune of Rs.10,59,371.94, by not maintaining the proper accounts in the Registers as per the bye-laws and Rules and by making false entries in the registers, the accused have withdrawn amounts from the Bank and other Banks, and thereby gained themselves, and thus committed offences punishable under Section 408, 177A r/w. 120B IPC.

3. Before the trial Court, on behalf of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 30 were examined and Exs. P1 to P78 were marked and on behalf of the accused no one was examined, however Exs.D1 to D-4 were marked. The trial Court taking into consideration of the evidence both oral and documentary, acquitted the President and Secretary and found guilty of the accused (A2) alone and convicted and sentenced him under Sections 408 IPC and 477A IPC to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment for each offence and to pay a sum of Rs.1,000.

4. Aggrieved of the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal in C.A. No. 139 of 2003 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Trichirappalli, and the learned Judge also concurred with conviction and sentence of the trial Court. Challenging the concurrent decision of the Courts below, this revision case is filed by the accused.

5. Learned counsel for: the revision petitioner contended that no offence under Sections 408 IPC and 477A IPC has been made out by the prosecution. It is submitted that to invoke the punishment for the offence under Section 408 IPC, the mandatory ingredients are (i) the accused must be a public servant; (ii) there must be an entrustment of the property to the accused; and (iii) the accused must convert the property for his own use. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dadarao v. State of Maharashtra,1 wherein their Lordships have held that when there is no reliable and direct evidence for the alleged entrustment of money to the petitioner, and also in the absence of indirect evidence and failure on the part of the prosecution to show that manner of keeping of accounts by the petitioner, mere production of entries in the books and registers cannot be held to be of conclusive so as to attract the provisions of Section 408 IPC. But a perusal of the evidence of PW29, Enquiry Officer would establish that A2 has no power to maintain and sign in the cheque book and there was no entrustment at all. PW22, Special Officer of the Bank and also the Khartha of the Bank categorically admitted in his cross-examination that as per the Resolution No.1 in Serial No.15, only the Secretary (A.a) is responsible for the cash entrustment and the Secretary and Joint Secretary are jointly responsible for the custody of the cash and jewels. It is also asserted by PW29 that for the cheque transaction in question, A2 had no power which version has been supported by PW25 as well.

6. As regards the offence under Section 477A IPC, as well, PW29, the Enquiry Officer and PW30, the Investigation Officer has admitted in their cross-examination that the entire misappropriation has taken place in Savings Bank Account and Fixed Deposit Account and one Rajaram was maintaining both the accounts of the Bank. They also admitted in the trial that they have not examined the said Rajaram who was the custodian of the said accounts. Mere production of ledgers and account books