To establish a charge of criminal breach of trust under Section 409 IPC, the prosecution need not prove the precise mode of conversion, misappropriation, or misapplication of the property entrusted to the accused. Entrustment of property and failure, in breach of an obligation, to account for the property entrusted, if proved, may, in the light of other circumstances, justifiably lead to an inference of dishonest misappropriation or conversion.

1. - This is a criminal revision by the accused against his conviction under section 409 IPC and a sentence of three months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine one months further rigorous imprisonment.

2. The prosecution case in brief was that the accused petitioner working as Superintendent, Students Hostel in Social Welfare Department, Tonk, was also working as Cashier in the department. On 27th April, 1969, the Public Works Department, Tonk, informed the Social Welfare Department that in case they wanted ceiling fans, they should deposit an amount of Rs. 529/- as the price of the Ceiling Fans. The accused while working as a cashier in the Social Welfare Department prepared a fully vouched contingent bill Ex.PA and obtained the amount of Rs. 529/- on 12th June, 1969, an entry in the cashbook was made vide Ex 2B. On 8th June 1969, the accused obtained this amount vide Ex.P2A for depositing in the Public Works Department. The prosecution case is that the accused did not deposit the aforesaid amount and embezzled it.

3. At the time of audit on 20th August 1970, the accused submitted an application Ex.PC praying that he had received Rs. 529/- for depositing, but he could not deposit the same as the ceiling fans were not available in the Public Works Department and as such he was now returning the aforesaid amount. On this application made by the accused, the amount was ordered to be deposited vide entries in the Cashbook. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tonk, framed charges under sections 409, 465 and 477A against the accused.

4. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses in support of their case and filed a number of documentary evidence. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, by his judgment dated 28th February, 1977, found the accused guilds for offence under section 409 IPC and sentenced him in the manner indicated above. It is important to mention here that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate recorded no finding for offences under sections 465 and 477A On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Tonk, also by his judgment dated 16ih January, 1981, upheld the judgment given by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Aggrieved against the aforesaid two orders the accused has filed the present revision in this Court.

5. It is contended by Mr. Dave, learned counsel for the petitioner, that as no finding was given by the two courts below for holding the accused guilty under sections 465 and 477A IPC, it would be deemed that he has been acquitted of the aforesaid charges and as he has been acquitted for these charges the petitioner cannot be held guilty for offence under section 409 IPC also. It is further contended that the charge under sections 465/477A' were that the accused petitioner committed forgery by making false entry in the cashbook dated 18th June, 1969 of the Social Welfare Department and if be is acquitted of this charge then he cannot be punished for charge under section 409 IPC. It is also contended that return of money by the accused on 20th August, 1977 is not proved and it is also not established on record that the accused was working as an Accountant or as a cashier in the department at the relevant period.

6. As regards the contentions of the learned counsel, I am in agreement, that the accused should be deemed to have been acquitted for charges under section 465 and 477A IPC as no finding was recorded by the lower Courts. However I do not accept the contention of the learned counsel that the accused cannot be held guilty for offence under Section 409 IPC in the case where he has been acquitted under Sections 165 and 477A IPC. The charges which reproduce as under are entirely different and if the charge No. 1 relating to an offence under Section 409 IPC is proved by the evidence on record then he can be held guilty for offence under Section 409 IPC:

"1- fnukad 12&6&1969 ls fnukad 18&6&69 rd lekt dY;k.k foHkkx esa dsf'k;j ds in ioj Fks rc vki us 529@& :i;s izkIr fd;k vk