JUDGMENT

G. Kumar, J. - Soney Lal applicant has been convicted under section 411 I. P.C. and sentenced to one years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, or in default to undergo four months further rigorous imprisonment. Another accused Bhagwandas was convicted under section 408 I. P. G. but his revision has already been dismissed by this Court.

2. The case of the applicant arises in the following circumstances. Bhagwandas was the Munim of a firm at Etah known as Messrs Hazarilal Nemi Chandra on a salary of Rs. 90/- per mensem. P. W. I. Nemi Chand was the proprietor of the said firm. On 8-7-63 P. W. Nemi Chand sent Bhagwandas Munim to Messrs. Mahasukhlal, which was carrying on business at Farrukhabad, with a letter (Ext. Ka. 4). to bring a sum of Rs. 6,000/-, which were due to P. W. Nemi Chandra. Bhagwandas was required to return to Etah by 9-7-63. When Bhagwandas did not return on 9-7-63, P. W. Nemi Chand had a telephonic conversation with Messrs. Mahasukhlal. He was informed by P. W. 2 Mahasukhlal that Bhagwandas Munim had already been paid Rs. 6,000/- on the afternoon of 9-7-63. Thereupon P. W. Nemi Chandra sent his other Munim Shanti Swarup (P. W. 3) to Ganjdundwara, which was the home town of Bhagwandas. After reaching Ganjdundwara P. W. Shanti Swarup came to know that Bhagwandas had brought the money with him but was keeping away from going to Etah. Therefore on 11-7-63 P.W. Nemi Chandra lodged a written report at Kotwali Etah, but all the papers were transmitted to Farrukhabad, as the offence related to that place. P. W. 11 Sri Krishna Gupta S.I. investigated the case. In the meantime Bhagwandas, absconded, with the I result that proceedings under sections 87 and 88 Cr. P. C. were taken against him. On 4-8-63 the investigating officer saw both the accused going on a rickshaw from Farrukhabad railway station towards the city at about 5 a. m. When the investigating officer stopped the rickshaw, both the accused tried to escape, but they were apprehended after being given some beating during the course of arrest. Bhagwandas accused informed the investigating officer that out of the sum of Rs. 6,000/-, which he , had received from Mahasukhlal, he had f passed on 5,000/- to the applicant and retained a sum of Rs. 1,000/- for his personal use. The applicant is said to have admitted before the investigating I officer that he had hidden the money in his house, which had been handed over to him by Bhagwandas accused. Both the accused were then brought to Ganjdunwara, where the applicant took the investigating officer and other witnesses to his house. On reaching the house, Bhagwandas asked the applicant to take out the money, which he had deposited with him. Accordingly the applicant went inside and dug out currency notes of 10/- each aggregating Rs. 1,490/- from the western wall of his room. Thereafter the applicant dug out another 33 notes of Rs. 100/- each from the southern wall of the room. Thus a total amount of Rs. 4,790/- was handed over by the applicant to the investigating officer.

3. I am not concerned with the defence of Bhagwandas as he is not before me. The defence of the applicant, however, was that he had gone to Farrukhabad to fetch his sister where he inet the investigating officer on 4-8-63. He was brought to Ganjdundwara and at the asking of the investigating officer he had dug a sum of Rs. 4,790/-, which represented the sale proceeds of his gold and silver ornaments which he had disposed off a few days earlier. According to him, the investigating officer had promised to return him the money, but he did not do so. On the other hand he falsely implicated him in the crime.

4. The receipt of Rs. 6,000/- by Bhagwandas accused from Mahasukhlal at Farrukhabad on 9-7 63 was fully established. Mahasukhlal also deposed that in that payment of Rs. 6,000/- a few currency notes of Rs. 100/- were a little greasy, so the witness had signed and sealed these notes on the understanding that he would replace them in ca