SavitriRatho, J. This revision has been filed challenging the Judgment dated 09.11.2005 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (F.T.-1), Keonjhar in Criminal Appeal No.33/91 of 2003/04 confirming the judgment dated 25.04.2023 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Keonjhar in G.R. Case No.897 of 2001/Trial Case No.121 of 2002 convicting the petitioner for commission of offence under Section 409 of the IPC and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 02 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment, to undergo R.I. for 06 months.

PROSECUTION CASE

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was the Branch Postmaster of Pipilia Branch Post Office from 03.07.1996 to 04.07.2001. It was alleged that during his tenure on 09.04.2001, he has received Rs.6950/-

as Branch Postmaster from Arjuna Mohanta who has Savings Bank Account No.643128 with the said Branch Post office. But the petitioner did not credit it in his account by making entry in the savings Bank Journal. On

03.05.2001, Haladhar Dandpat who has Recurring Deposit Account No.1145946 in Pipilia Branch post deposited Rs.1020/- in his R.D. account but the petitioner did not credit same in his account by making entry in the R.D. Journal. On 20.04.2001, the Headmaster, Pipilia M.E. School deposited Rs.423/- in his public account No.409243 but the petitioner did not enter it in the R.D. Journal. In all three cases he has made entry in the passbooks with his initial and postal seal showing entrustment of money to him, but did not make corresponding entry in the journal of the Bank. The Sub-Divisional Postal Inspector of Ghatagaon after enquiring about the defalcation, found that this money was entrusted with him but he has not reflected it in the Bank records, for which he was found to have misappropriated it. He admitted to have spent some money for his personal use and promised to return/deposit the money. After obtaining necessary permission from higher authority the Sub-Divisional Postal Inspector, Ghatagaon lodged the FIR. During investigation, police examined the witnesses, visited the spot and seized the savings Bank Journal, R.D. Journal, pass books and other allied documents, and after completion of investigation submitted charge sheet against the petitioner for commission of offence under Section-409 of IPC. DEFENCE PLEA

3. The plea of the petitioner in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the cross-examination made to the P.Ws is that he was the Branch postmaster of Pipilia Branch post office, but denied entrustment of any money or its amount misappropriation.

4. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined seven witnesses. P.W.1 – Tapas Kumar Das is the informant. P.W. 2 – Arjun Charan Mohanta, P.W. 3 – Haladhar Dandpat and P.W.5 – Dayanidhi Sahoo are the account holders. P.W.4 – Krushna Ch. Naik and P.W.6 – Nabin Kumar Mohanta are the seizure witnesses and P.W.7 – Sylverius Toppo is the I.O. No witness has been examined from the side of the defence. SUBMISSIONS . Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the petitioner has denied to have received the amount alleged to have been misappropriated, his signature ought to have been examined by a handwriting expert to prove that the same belongs to him. In absence of such examination the factum of entrustment cannot be proved. He further submits that non-entry of the amount as alleged in the concerned documents of the post office may be due to negligence and in absence of specific evidence that the petitioner has converted the same for his personal use, the petitioner cannot be held liable for misappropriation of the same. The evidence of P.W.5 the Headmaster would go to show that on

20.04.2001, he has deposited Rs.423/- in the school account through his office peon, Laxmidhar Singh, but the said Laxmidhar Singh has not been examined to prove the deposit. In such circu