HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 334 / 2003
Yudhveer Singh S/o Shri Raghuveer Singh by Caste Yadav R/o
Ambedkar Circle, Krishna Colony, Alwar.
State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor
For Petitioner(s) : None present
For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.N. Sandu, Public Prosecutor
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
1. Though none appears for the petitioner, having perused
the record I find that the petitioner took a loan from the
complainant-bank and at the time of the loan, executed a deed of
hypothecation in which machinery at the factory of the petitioner
was hypothecated. There was a default in re-payment of the loan.
The bank filed a complaint based whereon an FIR for offences
punishable under Section 420/406 IPC was registered. Charge-
sheet was filed. Charges for having committed offences punishable
under Section 420/406 IPC were framed against the petitioner.
Learned Magistrate acquitted petitioner for having committed an
offence punishable under Section 420 IPC but convicted him for
having committed an offence punishable under Section 406 IPC.
The reason was the testimony of the witnesses of the bank that
hypothecated machinery was removed. Appeal filed by the
petitioner has been dismissed vide order dated March 5, 2003.
(2 of 2)
2. It is settled law that for an offence punishable under
Section 406 IPC there has to be an entrustment. In case of
hypothecation there is no entrustment. The hypothecated goods
belong to the one who executes the deed of hypothecation. He
retains the possession of the goods.
3. This aspect has been overlooked by the learned
Magistrate and the learned Court of Sessions.
4. The petition is disposed of setting aside the impugned
judgments dated March 5, 2003 and November 6, 1999. The
petitioner is acquitted of the charge for having committed an
offence punishable under Section 406 IPC.
5. The bail bonds and surety bonds furnished by the
petitioner are discharged.