1. - This is a revision petition against the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur dated 30-11-2000 by which he dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and maintained the conviction recorded by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Special Police Establishment Cases, Jaipur District, Jaipur who had convicted the petitioner for offences under Sections 409 and 477-A, Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo two years rigorous imprisonmen with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, and in default, to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 409 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and in default, to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 477A, Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for C.B.I.

3. Accused petitioner was working as a higher grade Assistant in the Transport Nagar Branch of the Life Insurance Corporation in the year 1989 to 1991. It is alleged that Shashi Shekhar Dave, Gurdayal Singh and Iqbal Singh obtained LIC policies in the year 1990 and the instalment of those policies with regard to the year 1991 was not deposited in the month of February or March. Necessary notices were sent to them. The case of the prosecution is that Iqbal Singh deposited the amount of premium and obtained receipt Ex. P. 1. However, some receipts pertaining to premia were missing as per the audit report and, therefore, a preliminary enquiry was held. It was alleged that the premium amount was paid by the above said policy holders but the same was not entered in the cash book and other registers and was misappropriated by the accused petitioner. Consequently, a case under Sections 409 and 477-A, Indian Penal Code was registered against the petitioner and after investigation, chargesheet was submitted in relation to the policy amount of Shri Iqbal Singh which was Rs. 2546.50 including the penalty and with regard to the rest remaining two policies the receips could be traced out and consequently their matter was dropped. The learned Magistrate framed charge under the said sections agains the petitioner vide order dated 2-1-94 who denied his indictment and then prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses in support of is case. Then accused peitioner was examined under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code He did not produce any winess in defence. Learned Magistrate after hearing both the paries convicted and sentenced the accused petitioner as stated above. On appeal, the said convicion and sentences were maintained.

4. The settled law for such cases is found in State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri, (1999 1 JT (SC 456 : (1999 Cri LJ 1443 in which it has been held that if some glaring feature appears then the evidence can be further reappreciated by the High Court, otherwise, when there is appreciation of evidence by the trial Court and reappreciation by the appellate Court, the same will not be interfered with.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Biri Singh submitted that the salient feature in his case is that accused peiitoner did not obtain the money as such here was no entrustment to him. He also submitted that the accused petitioner has been convicted on the basis of statement of only Iqbal Singh which suffers from infirmities and that the prosecution was not able to prove as to whom money was handed over because the receipt Ex. P. 1 states that the cash amount was received by somebody else and not by petitioner. He stated that accused petitioner was an official whose duty was simply supervisory, and he simply put his signatures on the stamp of the receipt while the amount was received by somebody else which prosecution was not able to prove. He drew my attention to the statement of PW. 6 K. B. Chenani who held deparmental enquiry and stated that during inquiry