Judgment Madan Mohan Prasad, J. 1. This application in revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No. 79/76 whereby the conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner has been confirmed. 2. The material facts for the disposal of the disposal of this application are as follows: "One Rajendra Kumar Agarwalla had approached the petitioner for arranging two trucks for him for dispatching coal and for delivery of the same to the consignee M/s. Industrial Tools Corporation, Bahadurgarh, in the State of Haryana. The hue charge was settled at Rs. 270.00 per matrication. The complainant loaded the coal on two trucks arranged by the petitioner and two separate challans were prepared in the name of the complainant on 6th April, 1973. The complainant also paid Rs. 100.00 by way of advance. As no delivery of the coal to the consignee was made, the complainant wrote a registered letter with A.D. on 25th May, 1973 to the petitioner making a grievance that no delivery of the coal was made and also informed about the action to be taken against him for committing a breach of trust in respect of the price of the coal loaded in the two trucks. The petitioner did not reply to the letter of the complainant and the complainant lodged an information at Jhar a Police Station on 25th June, 1973, from where it was referred to the court and accordingly a complaint petition was filed in the court giving all the details in the petition. The learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate examined the complainant and took cognizance of the case." 3. The petitioner appeared and denied the charges. The petitioner pleaded that he is merely a broker and he only arranged two trucks for the transportation of the coal. 4. The learned Magistrate on consideration of the evidence, oral and documentary came to the conclusion that the charge under Sec. 407 of the Indian Penal Code has been proved against the petitioner and accordingly convicted him. On appeal also the conviction and sentence of the petitioner was confirmed. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the judgment and order of the learned courts are bad in law as well as on facts. On appeal also the conviction and sentence of the petitioner was confirmed. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the judgment and order of the learned courts are bad in law as well as on facts. Learned courts below have failed to consider that the petitioner was merely a broker and he only arranged two trucks on commission basis. There was no entrustment of the coal to the petitioner nor the petitioner has misappropriated the coal. It is submitted that the learned courts below have misconstrued the facts. Now it has to be seen as to how far the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is correct. 6. Learned counsel has contended that the case made out by the complainant in his petition is absolutely different from his evidence in the court and on that score alone the prosecution case ought to have been discarced by the learned courts below. There has been undue delay in filing the complaint. At any rate the prosecution has failed to prove that there was entrustment of coat to this petitioner. From perusal of Exts. 1 and 1/A it is evident that the drivers of the trucks had acknowledged this fact of transit of coal by putting heir signatures on the said challans. The evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 proved that the petitioner had merely arranged two trucks for the complainant for delivery of coal. In view of the clear evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 3, it would appear that the petitioners business is only to fix the rate and arrange trucks for the local coal merchants for despatch of their coal. There are about 100 firms near that place at Katras More, in Jharia, carrying on such business and they receive commission for doing such business learned counsel has further contended that the petitioner was not present, at the time of the loading of the coal at Madhuban Colliery, nor he was there even after the trucks were loaded. In these circumstances the petitioner who is only a broker or commission agent cannot be held liable for the offence under Sec. 407 of the Indian Penal Code. In these circumstances the petitioner who is only a broker or commission agent cannot be held liable for the offence under Sec. 407 of the Indian Penal Code. It has also been contended that on the basis of the evidence of P.W. 5, the complainant had no locus standi to file this case when the entire value of the alleged coal was already paid by P.W. 5 to the complainant and the ownership of the coal was thus transferred with P.W. 5. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be correct. The challans have been signed by the owner and the drivers of the trucks and the stipulation made therein also throws all responsibility upon the owner and the drivers of the trucks on which the coal is alleged to have been loaded. The petitioner being a broker is in no way responsible for the alleged coal. The evidence on the record does not in any way show that the petitioner was present at the time of loading of the coal in the said trucks or the said trucks loaded with coal were entrusted to him The petitioner was in no way responsible for the coat if it not reach the destination. If the coal had not been delivered to the consignee then the complainant ought to have proceeded against the drivers and the owner of the trucks in which the coal was loaded. The petitioner being only a broker and a commission agent for arranging the trucks cannot be held responsible for the breach of trust and he cannot be held liable to be proceeded under Sec. 407 of the Indian Penal Code. Thus there has been miscarriage of justice in this case arid the petitioner has been wrongly convicted under Sec. 407 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly the petitioner is acquitted of the charge under Sec. 407 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. In the result, this revision application is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner is set aside. The petitioner is discharged from the liability of his bail bond.