The court considered the accused's conduct and the nature of the offense in determining the appropriate sentence for criminal breach of trust.

Odgers, J.

1. In this case the facts have been fully and I think correctly set out by the Assistant Sessions Judge. The accused who was the Sub-Postmaster of a small place called Cherambadi was convicted of criminal breach of trust or misappropriation in respect of a value payable article. This article was a cover addressed to himself containing a Railway receipt for certain motor car parts which the proprietor of a bus plying between Cherambadi and Calicut, P. W. No. 3, had induced the accused to order for him from Bombay. The goods were duly ordered and arrived at Calicut station and the accused took possession of this V.P.P. cover and, of course, of the Railway receipt and also obtained delivery of the goods from the Calicut station (or rather the bus conductor, P. W. No. 4, was the man who actually obtained the goods). The Bombay Firm who supplied the goods sent them on the 27th April and on the 29th the parcel receipt was presented and the goods delivered. The Bombay Firm was paid on the 27th June. The accused Postmaster had, of course, to disguise the fact that he had taken possession of this V.P.P. letter and he did so by manipulating the register maintained in the Post Office, Ex. 0 series. The accused was convicted and sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100 under Section 409, Indian Penal Code, read with Section 52 of the Post Office Act and on the charge of having fraudulently prepared the V.P. Register with which he was charged under Section 477-A and Section 55 of the Post Office Act, he was sentenced to one year. If the fine was not paid he was to undergo a further six months imprisonment. The learned Advocates for the accused have endeavoured to show that the accused received this Railway receipt in an ordinary cover and not as a value payable article. In order to establish this, of course, Mr. Ananta Iyer had to try and induce me to consider that the evidence of the Manager of the Bombay Firm, P. W. No. 5, was wrong or mistaken and that he must be incorrect when he says that this V.P. article was sent on the 22nd of April, 1927, from Bombay, Hughes Road, Post Office. I can see no reason for distrusting this gentleman, Mr. K.R. Srinivasan. Nothing in his cross-examination throws the slightest doubt on his accuracy.

2. The second point urged is that this story of the Post master having purchased or arranged to purchase from the bus proprietor, P. W. No. 3, is got up for the occasion in order to account for the anxiety of the accused to obtain these motor parts. It does not seem to me to be at all unlikely and neither the bus proprietor. P. W. No. 3 nor his conductor. P. W. No. 4, were examined in any way to break down that story. It seems to me the only tenable theory to account for the somewhat extraordinary conduct of this man. He apparently was responsible for the payment of these motor parts and I can only suppose from the facts that are revealed that he had not the money to pay in April. He, therefore, wanted to put off payment as long as possible, and he actually succeeded in putting it off for two months, from about the 29th April to about the 27th June.

3. Under Section 72 of the Post Office Act sanction is required before a postal employee can be prosecuted for an offence under Section 55 of the Post Office Act. The objection taken here is that the sanction was given after the prosecution had begun. This objection does not seem to have been taken in the lower Court. The section does not say that the complaint made under authority from the Director-General or Post Master General must precede the cognisance of the offence; that is to say, it does not seem to me to matter as long as sanction is obtained whether it is obtained before the Court takes cognisance of the offence or not. I think, therefore, the conviction under Section 55 of the Post Office Act must stand. The sanction in this case is Ex. D and was dated 28th and 30th. January. The complaint is dated 14th January