1. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.-The petitioner who was at the relevant time a Circle Officer in the Sadar Circle of the district of Bogra, was entrusted on the 17th of October 1954, with 127 items of Red Cross readymade garments by the office of the District Magistrate, Bogra, for free distribution among the needy and deserving people of flood-affected areas. It is alleged that the petitioner instead of distributing them in the above manner dishonestly misappropriated and converted to his own use as many as 90 items of these garments, but to cover up his guilt he obtained duplicate muster rolls from the Chairman of Relief Committees of Ranbhanga Centre within the Nandigram Union where on the 7th of January 1955, other relief articles, such as saris, dhods, lungis and ganjis, had been distributed, and converted these duplicate muster rolls to show that the Red Cross garments misappropriated by him had been distributed to the persons named therein.
2. On the 23rd of April 1957, after the petitioner had been transferred from Bogra and posted as the Superintendent of Azimpur New Market at Dacca, the police upon information received, searched the godown of his office and recovered there-- from 2 boxes containing Red Cross garments amongst other articles. The police also searched a flat immediately below his residential flat in the Azimpur Estatar which was under his lock. The key was produced by the petitioner and from this flat also other suspicious articles were recovered.
3. A case was started against the petitioner under sec--tions 409, 467 and 471 of the Penal Code read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. He was convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years as also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 or in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for further three months. He preferred an appeal to the High Court and his convictions were set aside on the ground of misjoinder of charges but a retrial was ordered on proper charges.
4. He was retried on a separate charge under subsection (1) of section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act for the alleged misappropriation of 90 items of Red Cross garments by the Special Judge. Fourth Court, Dacca, who again found him guilty and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for one year as also to pay a line of Rs. 1,000 or in default suffer simple imprison-- ment for another one year. His appeal from the above conviction to the High Court succeeded partially, in so far as the High Court, while maintaining the conviction, reduced the sentence to a fine of Rs. 500 only or in default simple imprisonment for six months. He now seeks special leave to appeal to this Court.
5. The main point urged in support of the appeal is that the misappropriation has not been established in so far as the goods seized have not been identified to be the goods misappropriated.
6. Under section 5(t)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act the offence consists in dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriating or otherwise converting to his own use any property entrusted to him as a public servant. In this case, the entrustment was admitted by the petitioner but he set up the defence that the articles were actually distributed by the District Magistrate through his were. It has been found by the Courts below that the articles distributed by the District Magistrate were the other relief articles and not the Red Cross garments. It has also been found that the duplicate muster rolls signed by the petitioner himself showed distribution of Red Cross garments also to the same persons to whom other relief goods had been given, and this was supported by a certificate given under the hand of the petitioner himself to the effect that the Red Cross garments had actually been distributed. This was obviously false. Red Cross garments had not been distributed and, therefore, the offence of misappropriation had been established. To establish his guilt it was sufficient to show that the petitioner who was entrusted with this property, used or disposed of the property in violation of any direction prescribing the mode in which the trust was to be discharged.
7. The goods were entrusted to him expressly for the purposes of distribution and if he did not distribute them, he clearly committed, at least, breach of trust in respect of the Red Cross garments. He was, in our view, therefore, rightly convicted on abundant credible evidence. We see no reason to interfere. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed.