1. Sri. P. K. Venugopal, the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner, not only contends that there is no legal evidence to hold the accused (Revision Petitioner) guilty of any offence but also argues that his conviction under S.409 IPC., on the assumption that he is a'public servant' is manifestly illegal.

2. The prosecution case briefly stated is as follows: The revision petitioner while acting in his capacity as the secretary of a co-operative society committed misappropriation to the tune of Rs. 1000/- by fraudulently striking the balance at Rs. 127-88 on 8-9-1962 and showing the expenditure to be Rs.2237-07 instead of the actual expenditure of Rs. 1237-07. The accused falsified the accounts to suit the above amount. Both the President and the secretary were proceeded against. It appears that the revision petitioner was absconding for some time and in the meanwhile the President was proceeded against and was ultimately acquitted. Apart from the sum of Rs. 1000/- referred to above, there was a case of criminal breach of trust in respect of a sum of Rs. 385-63 also. The prosecution of the revision petitioner was for offences under S.409 and 477A IPC. The trial court