Bank deposit and revisional hearing rules: non-payment of a fixed deposit without misappropriation is not criminal breach of trust, and adverse revision needs notice.

A bank deposit ordinarily creates a debtor-creditor relationship, so a bank manager's refusal to repay a fixed deposit, without proof of dishonest withdrawal or personal misappropriation, does not satisfy the ingredients of criminal breach of trust under Section 409 IPC. The text also states that a prejudicial revisional order under Section 401(2) CrPC, as extended by Section 399, cannot be made without notice to the accused and an opportunity of hearing; an order passed after hearing only the complainant is procedurally invalid. On these principles, the criminal proceedings described could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the bank manager's refusal to repay a fixed deposit amount, retained by the bank against the customer's claim, constituted criminal breach of trust under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; (ii) Whether a revisional order prejudicial to the accused could be passed without issuing notice and affording an opportunity of hearing under Section 401(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as applicable through Section 399 of that Code.

Issue (i): Whether the bank manager's refusal to repay a fixed deposit amount, retained by the bank against the customer's claim, constituted criminal breach of trust under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Analysis: The complaint proceeded on the footing that the fixed deposit amount had been entrusted to the manager in a fiduciary capacity and was misappropriated on maturity. The evidence, however, showed that the fixed deposit was linked to earlier receipts standing in the name of a partnership concern, that those earlier receipts had been pledged with the bank, and that overdraft facilities existed against them. The relationship between banker and customer was one of debtor and creditor, not trustee and beneficiary. On those facts, mere non-payment or retention of the amount by the bank, without proof that the manager withdrew and misappropriated it for himself, did not establish the ingredients of criminal breach of trust.

Conclusion: The alleged facts did not make out an offence under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the petitioner was not liable to be summoned for that offence.

Issue (ii): Whether a revisional order prejudicial to the accused could be passed without issuing notice and affording an opportunity of hearing under Section 401(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as applicable through Section 399 of that Code.

Analysis: Section 401(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 bars an adverse revisional order unless the accused or other person has had an opportunity of being heard. Section 399 extends that protection to revision before the Sessions Judge. Since the impugned revisional order was passed without notice to the petitioner and after hearing only the complainant's side, the procedure adopted was contrary to the mandatory requirement of the Code.

Conclusion: The revisional order could not validly be sustained because the petitioner was not given the statutory opportunity of hearing.

Final Conclusion: The criminal process initiated against the petitioner could not stand, both because the ingredients of criminal breach of trust were not made out and because the revisional order was passed in breach of the mandatory hearing requirement.

Ratio Decidendi: A bank deposit ordinarily creates a debtor-creditor relationship, so non-payment of a fixed deposit amount, without proof of dishonest misappropriation by the banker, does not constitute criminal breach of trust; further, no prejudicial revisional order may be made against an accused without affording the statutory opportunity of hearing.

---