This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment and order of the High Court dated March 27, 1958, whereby the said High Court maintained the conviction of the appellant but reduced the sentence of four years' rigorous imprisonment passed on the appellant by the Special Judge, Kanpur, to two years' rigorous imprisonment. The short facts are these. The appellant P1 was employed in the Police Department. He started his service as a constable on a salary of Rs. 13 per month from August 1, 1930. In 1946 his pay was increased to Rs. 46 per month. He was appointed a Head constable on a salary of Rs. 50 per month in 1947. He officiated as a Sub-Inspector of Police sometime in 1948 and 1949 on a salary of Rs. 150 per month. On March 1, 1949, he was reverted to his post of Head constable. Between the dates February 27, 1951, and September 9, 1952, he was posted as a Head constable attached to the L1. The charge against him was that in that capacity he dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriated or otherwise converted to his own use many articles, principally those seized in connection with excise offences kept in deposit in the said L1. These articles included opium, bottles of liquor etc. The charge further stated that a sum of Rs. 9,284-1-0 was recovered on a search of his house on September 9 and 10, 1952 and this amount was disproportionate to the known sources of income of the appellant. There was an allegation by the prosecution that the acts of dishonest misappropriation etc. were committed by the appellant in conspiracy with two other persons called P2 and P3. Therefore, the charges against the appellant were (1) for the offence of conspiracy (2) for the offence for the acts of dishonest misappropriation or user and (3) for an offence in respect of a particular entry said to have been forged in the Register of Properties kept in the L1. The learned Special Judge who tried the appellant P2 and P3 recorded an order of acquittal in respect of the latter two persons. As to the appellant, he was also acquitted of all the charges except one. On this charge the learned Special Judge recorded an order of conviction, but this was based on the sole ground that the appellant had failed to account satisfactorily for the possession of Rs. 9,284-1-0 which, according to the finding of the learned Special Judge, was disproportionate to the known sources of income of the appellant. It should be noted here that the learned Special Judge held the appellant not guilty of the various acts of dishonest misappropriation or user alleged against him in respect of the properties kept in the L1. In his appeal to the High Court the appellant urged various grounds, one of which was that Hon'ble Justice could not be convicted on the rule of presumption laid down when on the only charge of criminal misconduct alleged he had been found not guilty. The High Court repelled this contention and upheld the conviction of the appellant but reduced the sentence.