The court held that a person who is entrusted with property and who fails to account for the property or who renders an explanation for his failure to account which is untrue, may be inferred to have misappropriated the property dishonestly.

1. - This appeal arises out of the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalore, dated 29-9-72 by which he convicted and sentenced appellant Bhagwat Singh as follows :

(1.) under section 409 IPC to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 500 in default whereof, to further simple imprisonment for three months ;

(2) under sections 467 and 468 IPC on each count to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 300, in default whereof to further simple imprisonment for two months ;

(3) under section 477 A IPC to rigorous imprisonment for one year.

2. The sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently.

3. I have heard arguments and perused the record.

4. The brief facts are that the accused was posted as a supervisor, incharge of the Sheep and Wool Extension Centre Bhinmal. in the relevant period. His duty was to purchase wool on behalf of the Sheep and Wool Department and for that purpose, he used to advance money to sheep breeders at the rate of rupee one per sheep. The remaining amount of price was to be paid when the wool was delivered. The department allotted him a sum of Rs. 67,000 from 10-1-67 to 14-4-67. The wool was stored at the godown in Bhinmal of which the accused was incharge. Upon audit, it was found that the wool in the store with him was short by 1989.890 Kgs. This shortage was valued at Rs. 10,943 46 paisa. It was also found that the accused had forged fictitious receipts in respect of the advance and purchase money to several sheep breeders. The accused was charged that he was guilty under section 409 IPC in respect of the aforesaid shortage of wool in the store. He was further charged under sections 467, 468 and 477A IPC for forging the record (relating to receipts and entries of advance of money and payment of purchase price to the twenty eight persons listed in the charge-sheet and the stock register, while no persons of those names and descriptions existed).

5. The accused contended that the shortage in the wool was due to insects and rates having destroyed the wool and due to drying of the moisture. The learned trial judge observed that some shortage is likely to have occasioned due to drying but the burden of proving the actual reduction was on the accused, because it is not possible to believe that such a huge quantity of 1898,880 Kgs could be reduced on account of the aforesaid factors. As regards the other charges, the learned trial judge held that the accused forged the receipts, made false entries in the wool purchase register and advance booking register, as well as in the cash-books and he shall be deemed to have misappropriated a sum of Rs. 3,707 on this account and, therefore, he convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid.

6. Genesh Narayan Saxena PW 1 has deposed that he had gone to audit the store and accounts of the Bhinmal Wool Purchase Centre. He also took with him Shri O.P. Kalia, District Sheep and Wool Officer. He prepared the report Ex. P. 1. According to him the shortage in the stock was 1989.880 Kgs., which was of the value of Rs. 10,943,46.

7. Shri Om Prakash Kalia PW 8 has deposed that Rs. 57,000 were given to the accused for purchase of wool. The money, which was given as advance to the sheep breeders was given on receipts in a prescribed form. It used to be signed by the person receiving the amount and attested by the person paying the amount in the presence of two witnesses. The register showed the deficit in the stock upon physical verification. Out of Rs. 57,000 he returned Rs. 15,000, Rs. 22,000 were shown to have been paid by the accused to the sheep breeders, of the remaining Rs. 20,000 the accused gave no account or explanation.

8. In his statement under section 342 Cr. P. C. the accused admitted that the physical verification and statement Ex. P2 was signed by him as the verification took place in his presence. He has also admitted to have received Rs. 57,000, but he denied that he misappropriated any amount and stated that