1. This criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 28.06.2007 passed by the Session Judge, Hanumangarh (for short, "the Revisional Court" hereinafter) in criminal Revision Petition No. 31/2007, whereby the revisional Court partly allowed the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 19.01.2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh and order framing charge against the petitioner for offence under Section 420 IPC was set aside. However, the order of the trial Court dated 19.01.2007 framing charge in relation to the offence under Section 406 IPC was maintained.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the instant revision petition are that the petitioner purchased to truck from the respondent No. 2 having advanced a sum of Rs. 68,000/- as loan amount on the basis of Hire Purchase Agreement. The loan amount was to be paid in 24 equal installments at the rate of Rs. 2800/- per month. It has been stated that the petitioner paid three installments and thereafter, failed to pay the remaining installments on which the respondent No. 2 filed a complaint on 18.03.2004 before the trial Court. The trial Court framed charges against the petitioner for the offences under Section 420, 406 IPC. However, on revision, the revisional Court set aside the order of the trial Court framing charge against the petitioner for offence under Section 420 IPC and maintain the order framing charge against the petitioner for the offence under Section 406 IPC. Hence, this petition.

3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

4. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that ownership of the property remains with the petitioner and according to the petitioner, in the instant case, the vehicle is registered in the name of the petitioner, may be, with the endorsement of Hire Purchases Agreement on the Registration Certificate but at any rate, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not the owner of the vehicle. What the petitioner was required to do is to repay the loan amount in installments, which the petitioner failed after paying three installments at the rate of Rs. 2800/- per month. At any rate, it cannot be said that the petitioner committed the offence of criminal breach of trust. Learned Counsel has relied on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.B.I., New Delhi v. Duncas Agro Industries Ltd., Calcutta.

5. Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that hypotheticated goods has to be constructed to be entrustment of the goods and misappropriating the said goods amounts to criminal breach of trust.

6. The Criminal breach of trust has been defined under Section 405 IPC, which reads as under:

"405. Criminal breach of trust.-Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or willfully suffers any other person so to do, commits "criminal breach of trust."

7. In C.B.I., New Delhi v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd., Calcutta (supra), while considering the case of Bank credit and hypothecation of the goods which was subsequently disposed off by the person who hypotheticated the goods and in such circumstances as to whether offence under Section 405 IPC is made out or not, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that ownership of goods still remains with the person who hypothecated the goods and therefore, basically it was a matter of Civil dispute. While considering the expression "entrusted with property" as envisage under Section 405 IPC or "with any dominion over property" which has been used in vide sense in Section 405 IPC, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that such expression includes all cases in which goods are entrusted, that is