Dr. Bhakthavatsala, J.

The petitioner/accused in C C No.14643/2006 on the file of IV Add\. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, for the offence under section 406 of! P C, is before this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P C, praying to quash the order dated 25.5.2006 made in C CNo.14643/2006 and also quash the further proceedings.

2. The petitioner/accused is represented by Sri Padmanabha Mahale, leamed Senior Counsel along with the Advocates on record. The respondent/complainant is represented by M/s. Pramila Associates.

3. Heard arguments.

4. The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the Petition may be stated as under:

The respondent/complainant, while working as a Chief Telephone Supervisor, Bangalore Telephones, Department of Telecommunication, underwent an emergency, coronary artery by grafting surgery on 18.6.1992 in the accused/Hospital. The accused/hospital, by its letter dated 17.6.1992, had communicated to the Telecommunication Department that the treatment would approximately cost Rs.70,000/- (excluding cost of drugs and medicines). The amount was paid by the Department of Telecommunication and while discharging the complainant, the accused Hospital issued a detailed final bid for a sum of Rs.86,960/(Rs. 78,825/- towards medical treatment and Rs.8, 135/- towards drugs ‘and medicines) and collected the same from the complainant.

It is the case of the complainant that the accused/hospital was not recognized Hospital under the Central Government Health Scheme and the accused Hospital has charged in all amounting to Rs.86,960/- as against a sum ofRs.50,000/- (inclusive of all expenses) as a package deal~ applicable to the Hospital recognized by the Central Government for such treatment. Therefore, it is the case of the complainant that the accused/Hospital has dishonestly misappropriated the amount deposited by the Department of Telecommunication and also induced the complainant to pay Rs. I 6,960/- and thus caused wrongful loss to the complainant in all amounting to Rs.36,960/-. Hence, the complainant filed a private complainant on 7.9.2000 under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. against the accused/Hospital alleging that the accused has committed offence under Sections 23, 25, 403, 405, 406, 415 and 420 of IPC.

When the matter was referred for investigation, the Police laid a final’ B’ report. The complainant filed a protest petition. After recording sworn statement of the complainant, the trial Court by order dated 25.5.2006, held that a prima facie case was made out as against the accused for the offence under Section 406 of! P C and ordered to register the case and issue summons to the accused. This is impugned in this Petition.

5. The learned-Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant has not made out a prima facie case for the offence under Section 406 of I P C. He also submits that the Learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence, which is barred by limitation under Section 468 of Cr. P C.

6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner relies upon a decision Smt. Jairani Devi Vs. Krishna Kumar Jauharji on the point that mere payment of money by one person to another does not amount to entrustment and therefore no prima facie case is made out for the offence under Section 406 of I P C.

7. The learned Counsel for the respondent submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.

8. According to Section 406 of I P C, whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. The pith and marrow of the complaint is that the accused/ Hospital has charged excess amount for the medical treatment. Hence, it cannot be said that the accused/Hospital has committed offence under Section 406 on P C. and on this score alone, the petitioner is entitled to succeed. The another ground contended is that the offence is time barred under Section 468 of Cr.P.C.

9. It