PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Vs. ANAND KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondents have opened an account with the petitioner-bank. Cash credit facility was given to them. The respondent have hypothecated goods with the petitioner-bank On 26.9.83 Manager of the petitioner-bank inspected the factory premises of the respondents and the bank godown situated therein and found that goods hypothecated with the bank had been removed by the respondents to the extent of 3760 quintals and the goods placed there was found short to a large extent. The petitioner's Manager, therefore, made complaint to the S.H.O. Hissar for registration of a case. The case was registered against the respondents. After investigation, the police concluded that there was no evidence that the respondents have committed any offense with regard to the pledged goods. However, the police found the respondents to be guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 420/406 of the Indian Penal Code and the police put up a challan against them. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate found that offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code was not made out and he also held that the offence under Section 406 the Indian Penal Code was also not made out. It was observed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate that for misappropriation of hypothecated goods, the entrustment of goods by one person to another is an essential ingredient and the ownership of goods remains with the original owner and only the possession changes hands and it held that no entrustment was proved in the present case.

(2.) Whether the entrustment was there or not is a matter of evidence. The goods were pledged by the respondents with the petitioner-bank though the possession was kept in their godown. So prima facie it cannot be said that there was no entrustment. Moreover, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate could have also considered whether the case falls under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation of the petitioner is that the goods were hypothecated and the possession was kept in the godown with the respondents. When this is the position, the view taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate cannot be accepted.

(3.) This Criminal revision is, therefore, allowed and the order of discharge of the respondents is set aside and the case is remanded to learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for proceeding with the case in accordance with law.