R. K. DASH, J.

( 1 ) KARTIKESWAR Nayak, Petitioner herein, was the Branch Post Master of Ratapet Branch Post Office. He was prosecuted for the offence under Ss. 409 and 468, IPC. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Baramba, who tried the case held the petitioner guilty of both the offences and consequently convicted and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under S. 409 and rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence under S. 468, IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Against that order of conviction and sentence the petitioner appealed to the Sessions Judge. The learned second Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack, who heard the appeal agreed with the findings and conclusion of the trial Court as regards offence under S. 409, IPC, but allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction of the petitioner recorded under S. 468, IPC. It is against that judgement of the appellate Court, the petitioner has filed the present revision.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case are well set out in the judgement of both the Courts below and therefore, it is not necessary to proliferate the same except to refer to certain salient features relevant for disposal of the revision.

( 3 ) TO bring home the charge of 'criminal breach of trust' punishable under S. 409, IPC the prosecution is required to prove; (I) that a public servant was entrusted with property or with daminion over it; (II) that being so entrusted, he dishonestly misappropriated or converted to his use that property or dishonestly used or disposed of that property in violation - (a) of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is discharged, or (b) any legal contract made touching the discharge of such trust. The word "entrust" is not a term of law. It has different implications in different contexts. According to Chambers English Dictionary, "entrust" means to 'give in trust; to commit as a trust to charge trustingly'. In its most general significance it imparts handing over possession for some purpose other than conferring proprietary right. The ownership or beneficial interest in the property in respect of which offence of criminal breach of trust is alleged to have been committed must be with some person other than the accused and the letter must held it on account of some person or for his benefit.

( 4 ) THE next most essential ingredient for proof of criminal breach of trust is 'misappropriation with a dishonest intention'. Breach of trust is not an offence if it is not associated with intention which is dishonest. Word 'dishonestly' defined in S. 24, IPC means doing anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another. So offence is complete when misappropriation or conversion of the property has been made dishonestly. Even temporary misappropriation falls within the ambit of the offence.

( 5 ) IN the case in hand the prosecution in order to bring home the charge of temporary misappropriation under S. 409, IPC mainly relied upon the ocular evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 11 coupled with certain documentary evidence, viz. , cash book of the Gram Panchayat, Ext. 35, pay-in-slips, Exts. 14 to 18, relevant entries in Savings Bank Journal, Exts. 6 to 9, entries in the accounts book of the Branch Post Office, Exts. 23 to 37 and Head Post Office Ledger Card, Ext. 31. It need be stated that the Inspector of Post Offices, P. W. 1 in his report to the Police whichwas treated as FIR had given in details the corresponding date of receipt and deposit of Rs. 9,200/- in the Saving Bank Account of the Gram Panchayat. As mentioned therein, there was delay ranging from 4 months to 11 months in making the deposit in the Panchayat Pass Book. In support of what he has alleged in the said