P. D. MULYE, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has filed this revision against the order dated 3rd December, 1982 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mandsaur, in Cr. Rev. No. 28 of 1982 filed by the respondent-complainant, whereby he set aside the order dated 9. 1. 1982 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mandsaur, who had discharged the petitioner for an offence under Section 406 Indian Penal Code. ( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this petition may be stated, in brief, thus; the complainant filed two criminal complaints against the petitioner. According to the complainant he had taken a loan of Rs. 2000/- from the petitioner on 21. 5. 76 and he pledged certain ornaments. Similarly on 31. 5. 76 he had obtained alone of Rs. 5000/- and also pledged certain ornaments. As the complainant wanted to redeem the pledge, he gave notice to the petitioner who denied his liability. The complainant, therefore filed two complainants under Sections 406 and 409 Indian Penal Code. The case of the petitioner was that the transaction was of a civil nature; that the complainant himself had obtained back the pledged ornaments, had made certain payment against the loans advanced by the petitioner. Further according to the petitioner to respect of a separate transaction he had filed a civil suit against the complainant which was decreed on 28. 2. 79 and after about three years the complainant filed the present petition. ( 3 ) THE learned trial court after considering this plea felt that the dispute was of a civil nature and discharged the petitioner. On a revision being filed by the complainant the same was allowed. Hence this revision by the petitioner. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the decision reported in Ashok Kumar Doshi v. Siyaram, Trilok Singh v. Satya Deo Tripathi2 and 1979 M. P. Weekly Notes (Vol. II) Note 346, submitted that the dispute being purely of a civil nature the learned lower revisional Court was not justified in setting aside the order of discharge. He also submitted that the learned lower revisional court has further erred in law in not only remanding the case but further directly the trial court to frame a charge against the petitioner under Section 406 I. P. C. which it was not legally entitled to so direct. He also submitted that the learned lower revisional court has further erred in law in not only remanding the case but further directly the trial court to frame a charge against the petitioner under Section 406 I. P. C. which it was not legally entitled to so direct. He further submitted that the learned lower revisional court in para of its order has committed an error in referring to the Statement of the petitioner given in the civil case which it has no jurisdiction to so consider. He, therefore, submitted that the order of the lower revisional court deserves to be set aside. ( 5 ) ON the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent in fairness submitted that the learned lower revisional court while remanding the case was certainly not justified in directing the trial court to frame a charge under section 406 I. P. C. He, therefore, submitted that to that extent this part of the direction deserves to be quashed. The learned counsel for the respondent also did not dispute this fact that the learned lower revisional court at this stage should not have looked into the Statement of the petitioner given in the civil case. However, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the plea taken by the petitioner could not be considered at this stage because prima facie there is no dispute about the fact that the complainant, after obtaining the loan had pledged the articles. Further it is also the case of the petitioner himself that the complainant himself took away the pledged articles though there is no suchwriting to that effect and that he himself got these ornaments sold to another person and thus paid some amount to the petitioner. He, therefore, submitted that normally such a thing does not happen, though he did not dispute that under the contract Act the petitioner could give notice to the respondent calling upon him to make payment within a particular time and for his failure to do so, by the notice also inform the complainant that he would sell the pledged articles and appropriate the proceeds his due and if any balance is still found due will proceed against the defaulting party. But he further submitted that in the present case, prima facie the case of the petitioner has been that the complainant himself took away the pledged articles. But he further submitted that in the present case, prima facie the case of the petitioner has been that the complainant himself took away the pledged articles. He, therefore, submitted that prima facie the complainant has proved that he had entrusted the ornaments with the petitioner in trust and he could not deny his liability in the manner in which he has tried to do. He, therefore, submitted that the view taken by the learned lower revisional court cannot be said to be perverse. ( 6 ) AFTER hearing the learned counsel and after going through the record I am of opinion that this revision deserves to be allowed partly. The direction of the lower revisional court to the trial to frame a charge under Section 406 Indian Penal Code being not in conformity with law has to be and is hereby set aside. The trial court is free and is at liberty not to abide, by that condition and it can in the light of the material on record either frame a charge or many not frame a charge. Similarly while considering the case afresh in accordance with law, the learned trial court shall not be obsessed by, the observations made by the learned revisional court in para 8 of its order pointed out above. ( 7 ) THE revision petition is disposed of accordingly. The record of the lower court be immediately sent back to that court. Revision partly allowed. .