M G MAHAT Vs. SHIVAPUTRAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1st respondent had pledged some gold articles with the State Bank of India Branch at Hunugund. He is the complainant in the case. He filed a private complaint on 15-1-1983 in the Court under S. 200 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code) not merely against these petitioners but also against the Manager of that Bank, C. S. Damanakara. The averments in the complaint were that he had pledged some Gold articles belonging to him with the Bank, had secured a loan of Rs 1,500 had later on 9-12-1982, approached the Bank with the principle and interest due on the loan, with a request to the Bank authorities to return the pledged articles that when the articles were shown for being returned he found that they were not the ones he had pledged but were of an inferior quality and value that therefore, had declined to obtain return of the same and that since the three accused, who had been entrusted with the articles had committed criminal breach of trust re: the same, they were liable to be proceeded against.

(2.) This complaint was referred to the Police for investigation under S. 156(3) of the Code. The Police after investigation have placed a chargesheet only against these two persons but not against the Bank. Manager.

(3.) On behalf of these petitioners it was contended by their learned Counsel that the facts placed by the police do not show any prima facie case against his clients and, therefore, the Court below had committed an error in issuing process to them. According to him, the very complaint of the first respondent was that he had pledged the articles, with the Bank and therefore, on behalf of the Bank it was the first accused, the Manager who was if at all, responsible and not these petitioners who were only minor functionaries therein. The Manager, it is said was the person solely in charge of the affairs of the Bank. His case is that to constitute an offence under S. 409 IPC entrustment of the property or dominion over property entrusted to the Bank and that in these circumstances of the case it cannot be said that either his clients had been entrusted with the property or had dominion over the same. He pleads that, if at all. the entrustment was to the Bank and the dominion, if any. over the property pledged in the Bank lies with the person solely responsible to the management of the Bank branch and certainly not his clients.