JUDGMENT : N.K. Das, J. - The complainant is in appeal against the order of acquittal of the Respondent who was charged u/s 406, Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case is that the complainant bad pledged ornaments of different nature weighing about 4 Tolas gold with the Respondent on 11-5-1973 and borrowed Rs. 400/-. He also pledged 4 Tolas of gold with the Respondent on 5-6-1973 and borrowed Rs 300/-. On 21-6-1974 be paid Rs. 700/- towards principal and Rs. 262/- towards interest to the Respondent. As it was Shrigundicha Day, the Respondent did not return the ornaments. On the following day, the complainant approached the Respondent for return of the ornaments, but the Respondent deferred the matter. Ultimately, on 10-11-1974 the complainant went to the house of the Respondent along with P.Ws. 5 and 6 and some others for settlement of the dispute. In course of talk the Respondent placed the account book before the Bhadralogs and admitted to have received a sum of Rs. 962/- from the complainant. Further he demanded some more money towards interest which had not been paid by the complainant. The Bhadralogs came to a finding that the complement would pay Rs. 87/- more towards the outstanding interest. The complainant deposited that sum of Rs 87/- with the Bhadralogs and the Respondent said that on the next day he would take the money and the account book from the Bhadralogs. On the following day when the complainant went with the Bhadralogs to the Respondent and demanded the pledged ornaments, the Respondent instead of returning the ornaments, abused the complainant in filthy language and denied to hand over the ornaments. There after, the complainant approached the Respondent on several occasions, but to no effect. Ultimately, on 22-12-1974 the complainant lodged a written F. I. R. at Ranpur Police Station and a case was registered by the police. During investigation, the police seized the account book and the cash from the Bhadralogs and Certain ornaments from the Respondent. But the police did not examine the complainant and on 12-5-1973 a notice was given by the police to the complainant that final report had been submitted in the case. After that, the complainant came up with the present complaint petition against the Respondent on 19-5-1975. But the police did not examine the complainant and on 12-5-1973 a notice was given by the police to the complainant that final report had been submitted in the case. After that, the complainant came up with the present complaint petition against the Respondent on 19-5-1975. The defence plea is denial and in the statement u/s 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, the Respondent has stated that on two occasions he had given a total of Rs. 700/- to the complainant who had pledged ornaments with him and on 21-6-1974 he had received Rs 962 50 paise from the complainant and had returned the ornaments. 2. The trial Court held that the ornaments were pledged by the complainant with the Respondent and the complainant had taken loans from the Respondent on that basis. But the evidence of the witnesses relating to the prosecution story subsequent to that appears to be improbable and the trial Court has held that prosecution has not been able to establish the offence u/s 406, Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubts. 3. Mr. Ram, the learned Counsel for the Appellant, contends that when the Respondent has admitted that the complainant had pledged ornaments and had taken loans from him and had paid Rs. 962/- to him, it should be held that prosecution has established entrustment and it is for the Respondent to explain as to who he dealt with the ornaments which were pledged by the complainant with him. As the Respondent in his statement u/s 313. Code of Criminal Procedure has stated that he returned the ornaments on 21-6-1974, he thereby took a false plea and, as such, he should have been convicted u/s 406, Indian Penal Code. Mr. Patnaik, the learned Counsel for the Respondent, contends that if the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution is examined, it would appear that no case u/s 406, Indian Penal Code has been made out by the prosecution. 4. Prosecution has to establish the case for which the accused is charged. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the complainant had pledged ornaments on two occasions with the Respondent and had taken Rs. 700/- in all as loan. It is also not disputed that a sum of Rs. 962/- had been paid by the complainant. But it is stated that the Respondent demanded full payment of the interest. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the complainant had pledged ornaments on two occasions with the Respondent and had taken Rs. 700/- in all as loan. It is also not disputed that a sum of Rs. 962/- had been paid by the complainant. But it is stated that the Respondent demanded full payment of the interest. It is not the case of the prosecution that the interest was paid in full. On the other hand, from the evidence of P.Ws. 5 and 6, who are said to be the Bhadralogs and who went to the Respondent along with the complainant subsequently on 10-11-1974, it appears that the Respondent was demanding Rs. 100/- as interest. P.W. 6 has definitely stated that the Respondent was to receive Rs. 100/- more from the complainant. After examining the accounts produced by the Respondent, these witnesses found that the interest had not been paid in full and some more money was outstanding. Prosecution case further is that the Bhadralogs settled the outstanding interest at Rs. 87/- and that sum of money remained with one of the Bhadralogs and subsequently when the money was offered to the Respondent he did not accept the same nor did return the ornaments. Mr. Patnaik, the learned Counsel for the Respondent, contends that the case .comes squarely under the decision in Hit Narain Mahton Vs. Bed Narain Mistry decided by a Division Bench. In that case, the complainant executed a hendnote in favour of the accused and on the same day he also pawned certain silver ornaments with the accused for another sum. The accused evaded settlement of the account and return of the handnote or the ornaments. So, the complainant took panchas to his house. The panchas settled the total dues at particular amount. The complainant paid the amount in presence of the panchas. On the pretext of bringing the document from inside his house, the accused went inside and did not come out. Subsequently, it was found that the accused had gone out of the house through the back door. The question for consideration was whether any offence u/s 406, Indian Penal Code could be said to have been committed in accepting the sum as settled by the panchas and retaining the same for himself by the accused. Subsequently, it was found that the accused had gone out of the house through the back door. The question for consideration was whether any offence u/s 406, Indian Penal Code could be said to have been committed in accepting the sum as settled by the panchas and retaining the same for himself by the accused. It was held that on these facts there was no breach of trust with regard to money, simply because there was no entrustment. The money was not given to the accused in that case in trust, but in discharge of the debt and having been paid in discharge of the debt, it became the property of the accused as soon as he received it. It was further held that it cannot be said that the accused had converted the ornaments to his own use because the ornaments were pledged with him and he still held the same in trust against the time when what he claims is paid off. Mr. Ram contends that in view of the decision in Sankari Narasingulu v. The State 41 (1975) C.L.T. 24, it should have been held that the Respondent has committed the offence of criminal breach of trust. This Court also noticed Hit Narain Mahton Vs. Bed Narain Mistry, in the aforesaid decision. The facts of this case are that a loan had been advanced to the accused on pledge of a gold ornament. The entire due's were paid. On receipt of money, the accused promised to return the ornaments, but did not return. It was held by this Court that the accused had committed the offence u/s 406. Indian Penal Code. The distinctive feature of this case is that the entire dues had been paid by the debtor, but in the instant case it is an admitted fact that the entire dues had not been cleared up by the complainant. Reliance has also been placed on Sarat Chandra Naik ' Mohapatra v. Kanheilal Padhi 1970 (1) C.W.R. 194. The facts and circumstances of this case are absolutely different from the instant case. In that case, the accused took a Dekchi and Handi from the complainant for a feast. He had promised to return the same after the function was over, but did not return the articles on demand of the complainant. The facts and circumstances of this case are absolutely different from the instant case. In that case, the accused took a Dekchi and Handi from the complainant for a feast. He had promised to return the same after the function was over, but did not return the articles on demand of the complainant. Reliance has also been placed on behalf of the Appellant on State of Orissa v. Sarat Chandra Patnaik ILR 1963 Cutt. 877 where the accused being a Clerk attached to a Naib-Tahsil Office had collected some money and was entrusted with that money which he misappropriated. The facts and circumstances of that case are quite different from that of the present case under consideration. 5. From the facts stated in the complaint petition as well as the evidence of the witnesses examined by the complainant, it is clear that the complainant bad not cleared up the entire dues of the Respondent. The interest accruing on the loan had not been fully cleared up. Therefore, the facts of this case are akin to that of Hit Narain Mahton Vs. Bed Narain Mistry, decided by the Patna High Court. In Satyabrata Bhattacharya Vs. Jarnal Singh a Division Bench of this Court has held that the advance of a loan to a person for accommodating him to keep the money for certain time is not entrustment of the money with a direction that the money should be utilised in a particular manner and failure to pay back a loan of debt does not amount to dishonest misappropriation of the money or dishonest conversion of the same towards his own use. The act of borrowing the debt with a promise to pay back within a certain period coupled with failure to pay it within the stipulated period does not make it a criminal offence u/s 406 or Section 420, Indian Penal Code and it is a pure civil liability enforceable through the civil Court, It is contended on behalf of the Appellant that the police had seized the ornaments during the investigation on the F. I. R. lodged by him. The learned Counsel for the Appellant drew my attention to some portions of the order-sheets of the trial Court to show that at the instance of the Appellant a direction was issued by the Court to the police for producing the ornaments seized and it was reported to the Court that the ornaments had been returned to the Respondent. There is no evidence on record worthwhile to show that the very ornaments which the Appellant had pledged were seized by t he police. Undisputedly, the Respondent is a money-lender and the account book produced in this case shows that he was lending money on pledge of ornaments. Therefore, it cannot be definitely said that the ornaments seized by the police were the very same ornaments of the Appellant, which were pledged with the Respondent. Even if it is assumed that those are the ornaments of the Appellant, it cannot be said that the Respondent has committed any offence of criminal breach of trust for not returning the ornaments. In these circumstances, I would hold that the ornaments are still with the Respondent and the Appellant is entitled to get back the same by clearing all the dues including the interest accruing on the principal amount advanced to the Appellant as loan. 6. In these circumstances, I would hold that the ornaments are still with the Respondent and the Appellant is entitled to get back the same by clearing all the dues including the interest accruing on the principal amount advanced to the Appellant as loan. 6. In a case of appeal from an order of acquittal, the powers of the High Court to reassess the evidence and reach its own conclusions are as extensive as in an appeal against an order of conviction, yet, as a rule of prudence, it should always give proper weight and consideration to such matters as (1) the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; (2) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at the trial; (3) the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt; and (4) the slowness of an appellate Court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses where two reasonable conclusions can be drawn on the evidence on record, the High Court should as a matter of judicial caution, refrain from interfering with the order of acquittal recorded by the Court below in other words, if the main grounds on which the Court below has based its order acquitting the accused, are reasonable and plausible, and cannot be entirely and effectively dislodged or demolished, the High Court should not disturb the acquittal See Ganesh Bhavan Patel and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra, . On the aforesaid analysis, I hold that prosecution has not made out a case u/s 406, Indian Penal Code. As the prosecution has not made out a case as aforesaid, the question of the accused discharging the onus does not arise it being clearly a case where ornaments were pledged for loan and the loan had not been fully satisfied. 7. It is further contended that the Respondent in his statement u/s 313, Code of Criminal Procedure has stated that he has returned the ornaments and having made such a false statement, it would be deemed that he has committed the offence. 7. It is further contended that the Respondent in his statement u/s 313, Code of Criminal Procedure has stated that he has returned the ornaments and having made such a false statement, it would be deemed that he has committed the offence. It is well settled that if the prosecution does not establish the offence for which the accused is charged, there cannot be any conviction even if the explanation by the accused appears to be false. If the prosecution establishes the offence beyond reasonable doubts, then in that case, a false explanation by the accused is to be taken in to consideration. 8. In the result, the appeal has no merit and is accordingly, dismissed. Appeal dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed