TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1982 (3) TMI 260
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch had been deposited by respondent No. 1 in a fixed deposit in the said Bank. 2. The finding of the Additional Sessions Judge being assailed is "it is proved on the record that the petitioner had deposited the money for a fixed time and it was the duty of the respondent to pay back that amount after the expiry of the period of the fixed deposit. It is also proved that the report of the police was obtained by the learned Magistrate which has corroborated the statement of the complainant which is to the effect that amount has not been paid to the complainant/petitioner so far. I find that the trial Court has not taken into consideration the fact that the respondent cannot keep this amount with him after the expiry of the period of one ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he rules and directions of the Reserve Bank of India". 5. In her testimony in Court her case was that she had herself gone to Kirti Nagar Branch of the Syndicate Bank on 10th June, 1978, for depositing the amount. On the representation of the Manager R. P. Sablok that she would get good interest if she deposited the amount in a fixed deposit she did so and a receipt bearing No. 961 in her name was issued. The amount was deposited for one year. According to her, after expiry of the said period she went to the bank to get the amount; the Manager got her to sign on the revenue stamp at the back of the fixed deposit receipt which she presented for encashment and also made her to sign some other documents, but thereafter refused to pay the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....000/- was one of the receipts renewed out of the old four fixed deposit receipts standing in the name of a partnership, M/s. Viking Dyeing and Woollen Mills. That partnership firm was enjoying credit facilities on security of the said four receipts. In his own words, "at the request of I. R. Chopra partner of the said firm those four fixed deposit receipts were converted into two fixed deposit receipts. Those two fixed deposit receipts were in the name of I. R. Chopra for a sum of ₹ 20000/- and the second fixed deposit receipt is in the name of Kaushlya Devi for a sum of ₹ 24,000/-". This witness further clarified that the earlier fixed deposit receipts had been pledged by the partnership with the bank. However, there ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ad with Sections 406, 420, 468 and 511 of the Penal Code. As noticed above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge while allowing the revision petition of Smt. Kaushalya Devi held that the petitioner herein was liable to be summoned under Section 409 of the Penal Code only. 10. From the evidence led by the complainant the following facts emerge : (i) that it was not the complainant who had herself deposited the amount of ₹ 24,000/- but the fixed deposit receipt in her name for ₹ 24,000/- was issued on the instructions of an erstwhile partner of M/s. Viking Dyeing Woollen Mills; (ii) that the said receipt was renewed on the expiry of four fixed deposit receipts which were in the name of partnership firms M/s. Viking Dyeing Wool....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....had Jain v. Director of Enforcement, . The Bank, therefore, cannot be termed as a trustee. In Santosh Kumar v. King, , on the ratio that the legal relationship between the depositor and a bank was simply a relationship of creditor and debtor, the congnizance taken by a Magistrate against Managing Agent of a Bank on a complaint of a depositor that the bank had used the money deposited by him in his current account for the purpose of other business was held to be bad in law. The criminal proceedings were quashed. Applying the law laid down by the Supreme Court, it cannot be held in the present case that the petitioner was a trustee of the amount deposited on behalf of the complainant. The refusal to pay back that amount, for the reason stated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctice of not sending notice of the revision petition to the person who is likely to be prejudiced by any order to be passed by the Court is not in accordance with law. It appears to me that the amended provision of sub-section (2) of Section 401 of the Criminal P.C. 1973, was not brought to the notice of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The said sub-section reads as follows : "(2) No order under this section shall be made to the prejudice of the accused or other person unless he has had an opportunity of being heard either personally or by pleader in his own defense". Under Section 399 of the Code a Sessions Judge exercises the same powers as the High Court under Section 401 of the Code. Sub-section (2) of Section 399 of t....