In a prosecution for criminal breach of trust, the appellate court must analyze the evidence and contentions raised by the parties and provide a reasoned order explaining its conclusions, even if it agrees with the judgment of the original court.

JUDGMENT :

A. Pasayat, J. - Petitioner calls in question his conviction u/s 408 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPO) and sentence of fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default six months' rigorous imprisonment, in addition to sentence till rising of Court awarded by the learned Additional Chief Judi- cial Magistrate, Cuttack and affirmed in appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack.

2. Petitioner stood charged for having allegedly committed offences under Secs. 408/467/477-A, IPC. He was serving as Secretary of Narasinghpur Service Co-operative Society since 197Q. The allegations were that he had misappropriated cash, pesticides, fertilisers, valuing Rs. 8,256.37 paise during the period from 1-7-1974 to 30-6-1975. He also forged counterfoils of certain receipts and made false entries in the cash book. On these accusations, investigation was taken up, charge-sheet was submitted and the petitioner faced trial.

3. Prosecution examined 27 witnesses to further its case while petitioner examined one Sukadeb Samal, who was one of the Directors of of the concerned society. His plea was that he was never in charge of the cash or fertilisers, pesticides, cloth etc of the society. The President, the Treasurer and the Assistant Secretary of the society were collecting loans from the loanees and were in charge of the documents and the petitioner was never in charge of any document or article and he did not have exclusive control over the cash of the society.

4. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted the petitioner of the charges under Secs. 466 and 477-A. IPC, but convicted him u/s 408, IPC as aforesaid. The conviction and sentence were affirmed in appeal.

5. According to the petitioner, in order to sustain a conviction under Sec, 408, IPC, entrustment has to be proved and this having not been established the conviction is not maintainable. The specific plea of the petitioner is that the evidence of PWs 1, 2, 3, 21, 25,26 and 27 on which reliance has been placed by the trial Court does not further the case of the prosecution, and on the contrary it goes to show that the petitioner had no exclusive control over the property of the society. It is also submitted that various contentions raised before the lower appellate Court were not considered and by a short cryptic order the matter was disposed of.

The learned counsel for the State, however, submits that the matter has been elaborately dealt with by the learned trial Magistrate and entrustment has been proved. According to him, when conclusions are affirmed elaborate reasoning is not required to be given by the appelate Court.

6. In order to establish an offence u/s 408, IPC, it has to be proved 'that 'i) the accused was employed as a clerk or servant of the person reposing trust in him; (ii) the accused in the said capacity, was entrusted, in any manner with the property in question or with domain over it; and (iii) the accused dishonestly misappropriated that property, or converted it to his own use, or used it, or disposed of it, or wilfully suffered some other person so to do, in violation of any direction of law, prescribing the mode, in which such trust was to be discharged, or any legal contract, express or implied, which he had made, touching the discharge of such trust. This is apparent from Section 405 which defines criminal breach of trust. The onus lies on the prosecution to prove entrustment by adducing cogent evidence. It is not, however, necessary to prove that any specific sum of money, received on particular dates from particular persons, has been dis- honestly misapproprirated. Once it is proved that the money was entrusted to a person, the burden rests on him to show as to what he did with the money and if he completely danied having received money the presumption is that he misappropriated or converted it to his own use. In a prosecution for criminal breach of trust, direct evidence of dishonest conversion to the accused's own use of the money