JOGINDER PAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this order, Criminal Revision Nos. 758 and 785 of 1981 would stand disposed of.

(2.) THE respective petitioners in these two petitions obtained loan of Rs. 10,000/ - each from the complainant -Bank and, in terms of the hypothecation -dee, hypothecated their goods present in their respective business premises from time to time. On the terms of the hypothecation -deed, the complainant -Bank assumed that goods hypothecated were theirs and the respective petitioners, having dominion over them, were in the nature of trustees to keep them replenished from time to time in the ordinary course of business. Since the respective petitioner sold the goods and did not replenish them, this gave cause to the complainant -Bank to file two complaint against the respective petitioners under section 406/34, Indian Penal Code. The petitioners, on being summoned for the purpose by the trial Magistrate, took up the plea that their liability was civil in nature and, on the terms of the hypothecation -deed, no case of entrustment had been made out. In the present case, the sole question which thus could arise was the interpretation of the hypothecation -deed and the consequential liability of the petitioners whether it is civil or criminal.

(3.) THE matter came up before me earlier. It was then stated at the Bar that the respective petitioners had suffered civil -court decrees (in one case consensually and, in the other case, after contest) and those civil -court decrees had become final. It has now been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that, in furtherance thereof, the respective petitioners are making payments of the decretal amount in installments. The factual existence of the civil -Court decrees is not disputed by Mr. Naruala, learned counsel for the complainant -Bank, but he is emphatic that the Bank, on that score, had not become disinterested in pursuing for the maintenance of the convictions and the sequel sentences.