BALWANT RAM Vs. HAZAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BALWANT Ram and Ram Nath, both petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 128 of 1988. are separately doing business an commission agents for sale of agricultural produce at Guru Har Sahai District Forozepure of Punjab State. Interse they are real brothers. Initially respondent Nazar Singh was selling his agricultural produce to Ram Nath. Having quarreled with him respondent Nazar Singh started selling it to Balwant Ram for the last two years. Sale proceeds worked out to be Rs. 21282.83 in all in respect of the sales made at the commission agent shop of Balwant Ram. Balwant Ram is alleged to have refused to make payment of this amount to respondent Nazar Singh. The respondent filed a complaint under Sections 406, 120 -B, 425, 426 and 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the two brothers in the criminal Court of competent jurisdiction at Ferozepore. Learned trial Court held that the matter adverted to in the complaint was a dispute of civil nature. The complaint was accordingly dismissed on 25.5.1987. Learned lower appellate Court, however, felt that it was a case of criminal breach of trust and directed the learned trial Court to proceed further with the trial of the complaint in accordance with law. The present revision in directed against the order of the learned lower Appellate Court dated 17.11.1987.

(2.) PRICE of agricultural produce sold by respondent to petitioner No. 1 during the last two years before the filing of the complaint having admittedly been worked out and calculated at Rs. 21283.83, petitioner No. 1 owed this amount to respondent Nazar Singh. Refusal to pay it constitutes only a civil liability which could be enforced by respondent against petitioner No. 1 only in the civil Court of competent jurisdiction. Agricultural produce sold or its sales proceeds were never lying as trust with petitioner No. 1. It was a money claim of Rs. 21283.83 which in terms of Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure constituted a dispute of civil nature. Institution of a civil suit for recovery of the amount aforesaid was the only remedy available for enforcing its recovery. There being no trust created for the amount aforesaid, question of its breach and enforcement thorough criminal process does not arise at all. Learned lower Appellate Court thus mis -directed itself in accepting the revision and remanding the case . Its impugned judgment dated 17.11.1987 is set aside and the order dated 26.5.1987 of the leaned trail Court dismissing the complaint is restored. Ordered accordingly. Order accordingly