Book entries alone cannot prove entrustment or sustain criminal breach of trust without corroborating evidence.

Book entries alone were insufficient to prove entrustment or misappropriation in a prosecution for criminal breach of trust. The Supreme Court noted that a debit entry showing money was handed over for transmission to head office did not by itself establish liability, especially where there was no independent evidence of regular accounting practice, cash checking, or actual delivery of the to the appellant. Section 34 of the Evidence Act made the entries relevant, but not conclusive. The appellant's explanation was not shown to be unreasonable, and his statement had to be read as a whole. The conviction and sentence were therefore set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the prosecution proved entrustment and misappropriation so as to sustain the conviction for criminal breach of trust, and whether entries in the account books, without supporting oral or other evidence, were sufficient to establish liability.

Analysis: The record disclosed no direct evidence of entrustment to the appellant. The only material relied upon was a debit entry in the branch books showing that the amount was handed over to him for transmission to the head office. Such an entry, by itself, could not prove entrustment. Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 makes book entries relevant, but they are not sufficient by themselves to charge a person with liability. The prosecution did not establish that the books were regularly kept in the course of business, nor did it adduce independent evidence to show the mode of accounting, the checking of cash, or the actual handing over of the money. The appellant's explanation was not shown to be unreasonable, and his statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 had to be read as a whole and not by isolating one part of it.

Conclusion: The conviction was unsafe and could not be sustained. The appeal was allowed and the conviction and sentence were set aside.

Final Conclusion: In the absence of credible evidence of entrustment and corroboration beyond book entries, the charge of criminal breach of trust failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Book entries alone, without supporting evidence of entrustment and regular business accounting, are insufficient to sustain a conviction for criminal breach of trust.

---