JUDGMENT Bind Basni Prasad, J. - This is a petition in revision by a lady; Shrimati. Ginni Devi against two persons, Shrimati Ratni Devi and Murari Lal, who are husband and wife. 2. Briefly, the facts are that Shrimati Ginni Devi brought a complaint u/s 406 of the Indian Penal Code? against the opposite-party alleging that the latter had borrowed from her a gold Tagri for temporary use. It is said that it was of the value of rupees two thousand Subsequently the complainant demanded the return of the ornament but the opposite party did not return it and is denying the loan and has thus committed criminal breach of trust. In the present case, when the complaint was brought, they contended that the ornament was never lent to them and they denied their liability to return. 3. The learned Magistrate relying upon Emperor v. Gurji 6. B.L.R. 1093 held that the loan of a chattal does not constitute the borrower a person entrusted with the chattal or with dominion over it within the meaning of Section 406 I.P.C. In this view of the matter he discharged the Opposite party. 4. The complainant went up in revision before the learned Sessions Judge but he dismissed it summarily. 5. The question is whether an offence u/s 403 or 405 I, P. C. can be said to have been made out if the facts alleged by the complainant are established. A perusal of the Bombay case relied upon by the learned Magistrate will show that it was also a case in which certain ornaments had been lent out. Both the courts below had convicted the borrower. The conviction was upheld. Batty, J., however, expressed the view quoted above but Aston, J., did not subscribe to that view. Aston J., observed:- I do not understand the conviction to be based merely upon the accused having told a lie in order to escape a civil liability. Both the courts below had convicted the borrower. The conviction was upheld. Batty, J., however, expressed the view quoted above but Aston, J., did not subscribe to that view. Aston J., observed:- I do not understand the conviction to be based merely upon the accused having told a lie in order to escape a civil liability. It seems sufficiently clear that the Sessions Judge held that the accused had borrowed a valuable ornament and When the owner had died and restoration was demanded by a relation of the owner, the accused retained the ornament and denied that she had ever borrowed or received it, and that the reason why the accused falsely denied ever having received the ornament was that she was dishonestly retaining the ornament without any intention of returning it or recompensing the owner. It was open to the Sessions Judge on the evidence on record to come to this opinion on the facts and these facts support a conviction u/s 406 Indian Penal Code. 6. If the complainant in the present case had lent out the ornament to the opposite party and the latter is now dishonestly retaining it and converting It to her own use then prima facie an offence u/s 403 or 406 I.P.C. is made out. The view of law taken by the learned Magistrate was wrong. 7. The revision if allowed, the order of discharge, dated the 12th August, 1950., is set aside. The case is remanded to the learned District Magistrate of Kanpur who will please transfer it to any competent court to proceed with the case according to law and in the light of the observations made above.