The main legal point established is that once entrustment is proved, it is for the defense to account for the same, and in case of failure to do so, it must be held as a case of misappropriation.

JUDGMENT :

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

1. The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 08.12.2011 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Nabarangpur in Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 2003, whereby the judgment of conviction and sentence passed on 13.08.2003 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-cum-JMFC, Nabarangpur in G.R. Case No. 495 of 1984 was confirmed. By the said judgment learned trial Court had convicted the petitioner for the offence under section 408 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo S.I. for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- in default, to undergo further S.I. for 6 months.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

In course of investigation in connection with Kodinga P.S. Case No. 55 of 1984 under Section 408 of IPC, it came to light that the present petitioner Anirudha Majhi while working a Salesman in Kotagaon Sales Centre under Kodinga LAMPCS from 07.01.1981 to 30.10.1981, received goods of different kinds from the Head Office and other Sales Centers and also received the closing balance of Sanagumuda Sales Centre, in all amounting to Rs. 33254.81. However, he deposited the sale proceeds at the Head Office and diverted some goods to different Sales Centers and also handed over charge of some goods to another employee, in all amounting to Rs. 29294.82, thereby causing a deficit of Rs. 3959.99 which was held to be misappropriated. During audit conducted for the said period also the aforesaid deficit was detected. In such view of the matter, Kodinga P.S. Case No. 86 of 1984 was registered and was investigated. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused petitioner for the offence under Section 408 of IPC. The petitioner was called upon to face trial in G.R. Case No. 495 of 1984 arising out of the aforementioned P.S. Case.

The defence took the plea of denial and of false implication.

3. In course of trial, prosecution examined three witnesses out of whom, PW-1 was the Accountant of Kodinga LAMPCS, PW-2 was the Accountant of Kodinga LAMPCS during the relevant period and PW-3 was the Auditor who audited accounts of Kotagaon Sales Center for the relevant period and had submitted report. Learned Trial Court, after considering the evidence on record as also the contentions raised by both sides found the petitioner guilty of the offence under Section 408 of IPC as all the essential ingredients of the said offence were clearly established. As such, the petitioner was convicted for the aforesaid offence and sentenced as already stated hereinbefore.

The petitioner carried the matter in appeal to the Court of Sessions, which was disposed of by Learned Sessions Judge, Nabarangpur in Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 2003. Learned Appellate Court also went through the evidence on record and held that the same clearly proved that the petitioner being a servant of the Society was entrusted with the property in question which he had misappropriated with a dishonest intention. It was further held that in a case of criminal breach of trust once the entrustment is proved, the onus shifts to the accused to give account of the deficit amount. The prosecution duly proved the entrustment of the entire amount out of which the petitioner could not account for a sum of Rs. 3959.99 and therefore, was liable and must be deemed to be guilty of misappropriation. On such findings as also by not accepting the other contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner-accused, learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment of the trial Court thereby.

Feeling further aggrieved, the petitioner accused has moved this Court in the present Revision.

4. Heard Mr. J. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.K. Maharaj, Learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.

5. Assailing the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court, Mr. Sahoo would contend that the petitioner being an employee of the Society had supplied the articles on credit to different persons under the instructions o