( 1 ) THIS is a revision filed by one Surendra Pal Singh who has been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 409, Penal Code, and sentenced to one years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 250/- and, in default of payment of fine, to three months further rigorous imprisonment.

( 2 ) THE findings of fact recorded by the lower appellate court are that the applicant realised a sum of Rs. 596/14/- from certain cultivators on account of canal dues in his capacity as extra canal amin and deposited only a sum of Rs. 398/4/6 out of it in the Government treasury. The excess sum of Rs. 198/9/6 was not deposited in the treasury, though it was realised from the cultivators. The circumstances justify the presumption that this amount had been misappropriated by the applicant. It further appears that the sum of Rs. 596/14/-realised by the applicant was not really due from those cultivators as canal dues. The sum due was Rs. 398/4/8 and that was the sum which, after realisation, was deposited by the applicant in the Government treasury. The amount of Rs. 198/9/6, which was misappropriated by the applicant, had been realised by him from the cultivators representing that it was due from them as canal dues, though this was not correct. The point, that has to be considered by us, is whether, on these findings, the conviction of the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 409, Penal Code is justified.

( 3 ) IN order that Section 409, Penal Code should apply, the offence committed by the applicant should be one of criminal breach of trust as defined in Section 405, Penal Code. A necessary element Of the offence of the criminal breach of trust is that there should be entrustment of property to the accused. The entrustment may be in any manner. Another alternative is that the accused may. get dominion of the property in any manner. In both cases, the law contemplates that the accused person should receive the money and hold it on behalf of the other, so that he should be the trustee of the property. In the case of a canal amin who, by virtue of his appointment in that capacity, is authorised to realise canal dues, the money is paid by the cultivators to him as an agent of the State government whose employee he is. When the money is actually handed over by the cultivator to the canal amin, the cultivator loses all dominion over that money as well as he surrenders all his rights in that money. The moment the money is handed over to the canal amin, it becomes the property of the State Government. The money so realised by the canal amin is, thereafter, held by him as a trustee on behalf of the State Government and not as a trustee on behalf of the cultivator who pays the money. The position would have been different if the money had been paid by the cultivator to an agent of his own for the purpose of its being deposited in the Govt. treasury in which case that agent would be amin is not an agent chosen by the cultivators for depositing their money in the government treasury. He is, on the other hand, an employee of the State Government charged with the duty of realising canal dues from the cultivators, so that the moment he realises the money from the cultivators, he holds it on behalf of the State Government. The sum of Rs. 398/4/6 correctly realised from the cultivators by the applicant as canal dues thus came into his hands as a trustee on behalf of the State Government and the findings of fact show that he discharged that trust properly by depositing that amount in the Government treasury. So far as the balance of Rs. 198/9/6 is concerned, that amount was never due to the Government. It was, therefore, never the property of the Government at any stage When the applicant realised this sum of money, it did not become Government property, nor did he ever become its trustee on behalf of the Government. At the same time, he could not become the trustee of this money on behalf of the cultivators from whom he reali