M.M.Punchhi, J.

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 liabi