JUDGMENT : D.P. Mohapatra, J. - This revision petition is directed against the order dated 22-6-1981 of the Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Gunupur in I.C.C. No. 113 of 1980 framing charge u/s 406, I.P.C. against the Petitioner. 2. The opposite party filed the aforesaid complaint case against the Petitioner alleging inter alia that the parties as front door neighbours were well acquainted with each other. The complainant pledged a gold ornament weighing 5 1/2 tolas with the accused on 19-3-1977 for a sum of Rs. 1200/-. Again on 21-9-1978 the complainant being in urgent need of money kept a gold necklace weighing 3 tolas with the accused for a sum of Rs. 600/-. It was agreed between the parties that the ornaments will be returned to the pledgor on payment of the amount of Rs. 1800/- at arty time by him and no interest will be charged on the amount of loan. The complainant further alleged that on 3-12-1980 he approached the accused with the sum of Rs. 1800/- and paid the same and wanted to taken return of the ornaments pledged with him, but the latter refused to return the ornaments saying that he has pledged the ornaments with other persons and has borrowed money in lumpsum and unless he clears the said dues he is unable to bring the ornaments from the pledgee and to deliver the same to the complainant. The complainant examined himself and another witness. S. Bhaskar Rao in support of the averments made in the complaint petition on a perusal of their statements the learned court framed charge u/s 406, I.P.C. against the Petitioner. 3. Shri P.K. Misra, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the averments in the complaint petition do not make out any criminal offence against the Petitioner, particularly an offence u/s 406, I.P.C. though they may make out a civil liability. It is well settled that at this stage the averments in the complaint petition, the statement of the complainant on oath and the statement of the other witness examined by him have to be accepted in toto. Accepting the same in the present case it cannot be said that the ingredients of the offence of criminal breach of trust ate not made out. Accepting the same in the present case it cannot be said that the ingredients of the offence of criminal breach of trust ate not made out. The contract between the complainant and the accused was that the pledged ornaments would be returned to the complainant on payment of the entire dues and the accused in spite of the said agreement used the ornaments as a pledge in respect of a completely independent transaction and thereby violated the legal contract between the parties creating the trust. This action of the accused was clearly dishonest as the accused intended to make wrongful gain of the ornaments by making an additional use of it as a pledge against another independent debt, and further caused wrongful loss to the complainant in keeping him out of the ornaments in spite of payment of his entire dues. This view finds support from a decision of this Court reported in Sankari Narasanglu v. The State. Shri Misra, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner cited some decisions on the question of the right of a sub-pledgor vis-a-vis the original pawner wherein it has been held that the right of sub-pledgee cannot be higher than that of the pledgee. The said decisions do not decide the question whether the unauthorised user by the pledgee of the articles pledged with him in an independent transaction of pledge in breach of agreement of trust amounts to an offence of criminal breach of trust or not and as such they are not helpful for the purpose of the present case. 4. Go a careful consideration of the materials on record and on hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I am unable to accept the contentions raised on behalf of the Petitioner that the court below erred in framing the charge u/s 406, I.P.C. in the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed as devoid of merit. Final Result : Dismissed