CHANDANMAL Vs. SURYAKANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., challenging the order passed by XV Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Criminal Revision No. 700/2005 dated 3.6.2006, whereby he confirmed the order passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Indore in Criminal Revision No. 1340/03 dated 2.9.2005. Learned Magistrate in the aforesaid criminal case framed charge under Section 406 of IPC against the present petitioner which has been confirmed by the Sessions Court.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that a private complaint was preferred by complainant/Suryakant Johri against present petitioner, thereby alleging that on 18.7.1993 he handed over his ancestral jewellery to the present petitioner for safe custody and thereby entrusted that property with the present petitioner. Complainant said that the property was valuing Rs. 125 crores. The house of the complainant was under repairing on the relevant time and present petitioner asked him to give that property to him for safe custody with the promise to return the same as and when demanded. Thereafter when the jewelery was demanded by the complainant/respondent, then present petitioner assured him that the property has been kept in safe custody and avoided its return. Many times demand was made by the complainant and ultimately when present petitioner denied return of those articles, then he lodged FIR against present petitioner and offence was registered by the police under Section 406 of the IPC as Crime No. 115/1998. It is alleged that the crime was not properly investigated by the police and in the meantime petitioner moved an application for grant of bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C, which was allowed by the High Court on the condition that he will fully co - operate with the police in seizure of the disputed jewelery, thereafter on the request of respondent some jeweleries were seized by the police, but out of that jewelery one item Alexendride could not be seized, because the same was sold by the present petitioner to some foreigner for $ 3 Crore (Three Crore Dollars). It is also alleged that at the place of that precious stone some other stone was seized by the police and in this way present petitioner committed criminal breach of trust, punishable under Section 406 of IPC. Ultimately, police prepared Khatma report on 25.4.2000, then a private complaint was filed by the respondent, on the basis of which criminal case under Section 406 of IPC was registered against present petitioner and he was summoned. Thereafter, evidence before charge was taken and on the basis of that evidence order for framing charge under Section 406 of IPC was passed, which was challenged by the present petitioner before learned Session Court, unsuccessfully and thereafter, present petition has been filed.

(3.) The petitioner has come with a specific case. As per the defense of petitioner, the alleged property was handed over to him by the complainant/respondent, but the same was given by way of security of the amount of loan of Rs. 30 lacs. The amount was taken by the respondent in many installments from the petitioner and the jewelery was also pledged one by one with the petitioner as security of loan. It has also been specifically taken as defense that no big precious stone valuing crores of rupees was ever handed over by the present respondent to the petitioner and in fact an artificial stone was given which has already been recovered. This defense has also been specifically taken that complaint is hopelessly barred by time because as per the case of prosecution itself, the property was handed over to the petitioner on 18.7.1993 and on 5.1.1998 finally petitioner refused to return that property to the respondent and then he lodged report with the police station Tukoganj. Thereafter, present complaint was filed on 18.8.2001, which is about 7 1/2 months late than the prescribed period of limitation as per provisions of Section 468 of Cr. P.C., therefore, the complaint is required to be dismissed on this ground.