ASISH BARAN MUKHERJEE, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against an order of acquittal passed by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, 17th Court, Calcutta in complaint case No. C/113/88 (T. R. 115/888) under S. 406, IPC. ( 2 ) THE case of the appellant who was complainant before the Ld. Magistrate is as follows :- The complainant used to stay at 358, Goabagan Lane, Calcutta-6 along with her husband and three sons. Her second son Prabir was married to the accused being the O. P. in this appeal on 5-12-1981. The O. P. was an employee of New Bank of India, Clive Row, Calcutta and the complainant's son Prabir was an employee of N. T. M. C. Limited having its office at Kharda. After the said marriage the bride used to stay in the aforesaid matrimonial home up to October 1984 when the couple shifted to Kharda within the Factory compound where accommodation was allotted to Prabir. In August, 1985, a son was born to the accused. In February, 1986 the complainant' husband wanted to make a fixed deposit account of Rs. 10,000/- only (rupees ten thousand only ). The accused suggested the said account to be opened in the Bank where she used to work in the joint name of complainant and the accused as it would earn more interest, she being an employee of the Bank. In April 1986, the complainant decided to keep her gold ornaments in a Bank Locker. Being asked the accused stated that no locker was available at that time in her Bank but she suggested the ornaments to be kept in her own locker as there was sufficient space in the same. The complainant agreed to the suggestion and in order to avoid any future controversy a list of gold ornaments to be kept in the said locker was prepared, which, amongst others was also signed by the accused. It was on 18-4-1986, the gold ornaments were also handed over to the accused by the complainant for safe custody. The ornaments as per the petition of complaint consists of 20 bharis, valued at Rs. 72,500/- on the said date. On 20-5-87 the accused accompanied by her brother Bapul left for her father's place at Uttarpara together with the son with the assurance that she would be back after four days. Ultimately, she did not return. The ornaments as per the petition of complaint consists of 20 bharis, valued at Rs. 72,500/- on the said date. On 20-5-87 the accused accompanied by her brother Bapul left for her father's place at Uttarpara together with the son with the assurance that she would be back after four days. Ultimately, she did not return. In the meantime, some difference cropped up between the complainant's son and the accused. In spite of best endeavour no settlement could be arrived at and the accused also did not return from her father's place. On 21-8-87, Prabir wrote a letter to the accused complainant of indecent behaviour of his father-in-law. Complainant's husband sent his brother and his wife to the residence of the accused for bringing her back, but in vain. Complainant's husband also wrote to heron 1-2-88. In the said letter he also requested the accused to make arrangement for withdrawal of the fixed deposit and also to return the gold ornaments which were entrusted to her on 18-4-86. The complainant also sent a letter on 14-2-1988 conveying the same request. In the meantime, the accused wrote a letter to complainant's husband stating that the sum with which fixed deposit account was opened belonged to her, as her father gave it to his grand son at the time of first rice eating ceremony. She also denied story of entrustment of gold ornaments. Complainant's husband again wrote to the accused on 25-2-1988 that letter was not answered. It is alleged that due to the misunderstanding between Prabir and his wife namely, the accused, the latter decided to misappropriate the money as well as the gold ornaments. As all attempts to get hack the fixed deposit amount as also the gold ornaments failed, a petition of complaint was filed before the Learned A. C. M. M. over which cognizance was taken on 4-5-88. Subsequently, charge under S. 406, IPC was framed against the accused, which is to the following effect, namely, "that you, on or about 18th April, 1986 at 35b, Goabagan Lane, Calcutta-6 being entrusted with certain property to wit 20 bharis of gold ornaments belonging to the complainant Smt. Renukana Sengupta which were kept in your Bank Locker and you did not return the said gold ornaments to her and thereby committed an offence punishable under S. 406, IPC. " The accused pleaded not guilty. " The accused pleaded not guilty. ( 3 ) THE complainant examined eleven (11) witnesses including herself. No witness was examined on behalf of the defence. Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, by the impugned judgement acquitted the accused after giving her the benefit of doubt on a finding that story of entrustment of gold ornaments has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. ( 4 ) BEING aggrieved by the said decision the present appeal has been preferred after obtaining leave of the Court under S. 378 (4) Cr. P. C. The grounds for appeal in short are that the prosecution witnesses in spite of extensive cross made an error in acquitting the accused person, instead of there being overwhelming evidence. It has also been stated in the grounds that the evidence of P. Ws. 2, 7, 8 and 10 coupled with exhibit 3 proves entrustment beyond reasonable doubt. ( 5 ) AT the time of the hearing of appeal none appeared for the O. P. , accordingly, the Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant alone was heard. ( 6 ) THE Ld. Advocate for the appellant has drawn my attention to two orders dated 19-9-90 and 24-1-91. The former order shows that two applications, one under S. 216 and the other under S. 311, Cr. P. C. were filed by the complainant on the day when accused was to be examined under S. 313, Cr. P. C. By the second order the Ld. Magistrate after hearing both the sides corrected the name of the complainant to "smt. Renukana Sengupta" instead of "renuka Sengupta" as appearing in the formal charge. But he refused to make a correction of the body of the charge which according to the petition would be to the following effect, namely, "which were to be kept in your Bank Locker" instead of "which were kept in your Bank Locker". It has been argued that the body of the charge ought to have been corrected by the Ld. Magistrate. I have considered the reasoning given by the Ld. Magistrate while rejecting the said prayer and I am of opinion that a prayer was rightly rejected. ( 7 ) THE Ld. It has been argued that the body of the charge ought to have been corrected by the Ld. Magistrate. I have considered the reasoning given by the Ld. Magistrate while rejecting the said prayer and I am of opinion that a prayer was rightly rejected. ( 7 ) THE Ld. Advocate relied on a number of decisions namely 1995 SCC (Cri) 675 and also (1996) 2 JT (SC) 140 in support of his contention that in the event of an appeal against acquittal the High Court has full powers to review these evidence on record and arrive at an independent conclusion. The proposition is not doubt correct but it has also been laid down that the High Court must keep in mind the reasons given by the Trial Court. Reappreciation of evidence by the High Court can be made if it is found that the view taken by the acquitting Court was not a possible view or that it was a perverse or infirm or palpably erroneous view. In that circumstance the High Court can certainly set aside the order of acquittal. ( 8 ) KEEPING in view the principles enunciated in the decisions which are established principles of law. I have scrutinised the impugned judgement as also the relevant evidence on this point. ( 9 ) THE most important ingredient for an offence under S. 406, IPC is the story of entrustment which in this case was alleged to have been made on 18-4-1986 by the complainant in presence of her husband and three sons to the accused being her daughter-in-law for the purpose of keeping the same in the bank locker standing in the name of the accused in the bank where she used to work. Before discussing the evidence on this point it is necessary to keep in mind some facts. Marriage between the accused and complainant's son, Prabir took place on 5-12-1981. The couple stayed together in the matrimonial home where the in-laws used to stay till September, 1984 when they left for Khardan where an official residence was allotted in favour of Prabir in the factory compound. A son was born to the couple on 15-8-85. On 18-4-86 while the couple used to stay at Khardah there was the alleged entrustment of gold ornaments to the accused in the house at Goabagan Lane where in-laws used to stay. A son was born to the couple on 15-8-85. On 18-4-86 while the couple used to stay at Khardah there was the alleged entrustment of gold ornaments to the accused in the house at Goabagan Lane where in-laws used to stay. On 20-5-87 the accused left Khardah along with her son for her father's place at Uttarpara allegedly due to difference between the couple over an affair relating to the son and she did not return. There were some exchange of letters between the accused on the one hand and the complainant, her husband and also Prabir on the other in 1988-1989. It has also come out that a Civil Suit was instituted by the complainant's husband against the accused over the fixed deposit account said to have been open in the bank where the accused used to work. Even though some evidence has been alleged on this point, it should be left out of our consideration since it is the subject matter of the said suit which is pending before the City Civil Court, Calcutta. A suit for divorce was also filed by Prabir against the accused and it is also pending. It is on record that till the date of trial the accused did not file any case Civil or Criminal against the complainant or her relations. ( 10 ) IMMEDIATELY after filing of the criminal case, search warrants were taken out and in course of the execution of the same locker at the bank and also the house of accused father at Uttarppara were searched but no incriminating article namely, gold ornaments as specified in the petition of complaint could be recovered. ( 11 ) IT is the complainant's case that on 18-4-1986 while ornaments were being handed over to the accused and a note was prepared which was written by the complainant's husband and signed by the complainant's husband, her three sons and allegedly by the accused. This signature stated to be that of the accused has been denied by her in course of examination under S. 313, Cr. P. C. The suggestion given to the P. Ws. examined on the point of entrustment also were to the effect that the accused never signed any paper showing alleged entrustment. This signature stated to be that of the accused has been denied by her in course of examination under S. 313, Cr. P. C. The suggestion given to the P. Ws. examined on the point of entrustment also were to the effect that the accused never signed any paper showing alleged entrustment. From the averment of these documents, namely, exhibit 3 it appears that the ornaments mentioned therein were kept in the locker of the accused at New Bank of India. It has been argued for the appellant that inspite of denial under S. 313, Cr. P. C. the signature has been admitted by her Ld. Advocate in course of making submission in criminal revision before the Sessions Court. But such admission on the part of the Ld. Advocate cannot take away, the stand taken by the accused consistently in course of examination of the P. Ws. and also in course of her own examination under S. 313, Cr. P. C. No attempt was made on the part of the complainant to get signature which is disputed appearing in exhibit 3 compared with the admitted signature of the accused by an expert. This in facts and circumstance is an omission vital in the instant case. ( 12 ) THE evidence of the complainant as P. W. 2 regarding entrustment of old ornaments is that the list of ornaments was prepared by her husband and also signed by her husband, three sons and daughter-in-law that is the accused. The ornaments were kept in a packet and the accused took the same to the bank on 18-4-86 with the assurance that she would keep the ornaments in her locker. In cross-examination she stated that the list was prepared following which there was handing over of the ornaments. According to her the list was prepared at 6 a. m. on the date on when the ornaments were handed over. It further appears that there was a function in their house on that day and as such they asked the accused and Prabir to come to the Goabagan residence from Khardah. It also appears from her evidence that during her temporary absence the ornaments used to be kept in the custody of her husband. P. W. 7 happens to be the son of the complainant. It also appears from her evidence that during her temporary absence the ornaments used to be kept in the custody of her husband. P. W. 7 happens to be the son of the complainant. His evidence on the point of entrustment is that the list was prepared by his father and the accused went to the bank with the ornaments. We get from his cross-examination certain facts about the necessity of finding out a locker by the complainant for keeping the ornaments which were so long lying with her since her marriage. It is his evidence that after the accused gave birth to a child his parents decided to move to Khardah and as the witness and his wife used to stay away in office for most part of the day, necessity of keeping the ornaments in the locker arose. It may be recalled that the son was born to the accused on 15th of August, 1985. It is also his evidence that his first rice eating ceremony was celebrated sometime in the first part of 1986. It is also in evidence that after the birth of the grandson, the complainant and her husband had occasions to go to Khardah to their son's place on some occasions but neither the specific dates nor the approximate period of their stay at Khardah are there in the evidence. So according to this witness the birth of the child was the reason for keeping the ornaments in the safe custody of a locker. However, it may be noted that there is gap of about 3 months after the birth of the child and alleged entrustment. Regarding the actual story of entrustment his evidence is that the ornaments which were with his father were handed over to the complainant who in her part transferred it to the accused. The exhibit 3 according to this witness was written before the arrival of this witness. He however, put. the time of preparation of the list at 6 to 6-30 p. m. , a deviation from the evidence given by P. W. 10 is the husband of the accused. The exhibit 3 according to this witness was written before the arrival of this witness. He however, put. the time of preparation of the list at 6 to 6-30 p. m. , a deviation from the evidence given by P. W. 10 is the husband of the accused. On the point of entrustment his evidence is that after the packet containing the gold ornaments were handed over to his wife by his mother on 18-4-1986 the witness also accompanied his wife to the bank as because in the said bank a fixed deposit account was due to be opened in the name of the witness and his father on the same day. It is however, his evidence that he never operated the locker. We also get from him that the witness did not attend office on 18-4-1986. In the circumstance, it is very much expected that he would remain present at the material time when the ornaments were to be kept in the locker. I agree with the reasoning given by the Ld. Magistrate on this point and it is beyond comprehension of anybody as to why he could not remain present at that crucial moment, even though he accompanied the accused to the bank with the ornaments. ( 13 ) IN the back drop of this evidence on the point of entrustment which in my opinion is far from satisfactory, we may scrutinise the evidence given by the Bank Officials on this point. P. W. 5 the Accountant of the said bank stated that a locker being 6442 was allotted to the accused on 1-12-81 and that as per the document kept at the bank, the locker was last operated on 13-3-84. The witnesses were deposing on 19-8-88. As such it becomes clear that there was no operation of the bank locker on 18-4-1986 as alleged. The accused made her husband a Nominee of the locker on 27-2-1984 but it was cancelled on 19-8-87. On 7-7-88 the accused informed the bank that key of the locker together with other keys and articles was taken away by her husband when she was forced out of the house by her husband. This witness has given procedure for opening a locker as also its operation. On 7-7-88 the accused informed the bank that key of the locker together with other keys and articles was taken away by her husband when she was forced out of the house by her husband. This witness has given procedure for opening a locker as also its operation. Therefore, it is clear that the particular locker was not opened after 13-3-84 till August 1988, at least and as such there could not be any occasion for keeping anything in the said locker. On 18-4-86 the Court can also take judicial notice of the fact that a locker cannot but be operated by the holder of the same unless certain formalities including signature, date and time are noted in the bank document before a locker can be operated by the holder and even the time during which the holder stays inside the safe deposit volt are noted in the concerned register. Therefore, the story of the theft of key is of no significance. ( 14 ) IF we consider the aforesaid evidence, it appears to us that according to the complainant's case the accused accompanied by her husband took the ornaments to her bank with the express stipulation that the said ornaments shall be kept in her locker. Her husband did not attend his office on that day and was with the accused in the said bank in connection with opening of the locker. In the circumstance, it would be very much natural for her husband to be present while the ornaments were actually kept on the locker. The existence of exhibit 3 categorically shows that the complainant could not repose faith in her daughter-in-law i. e. the accused and as such they thought it necessary to prepare a list of ornaments alleged to have been handed over to the accused over which all the persons excepting the complainant are alleged to have signed. As such it is not believable that when they are so much cautious about safe-keeping of the ornaments, the husband of the accused shall not remain present to see that the ornaments are put in the right place. As such it is not believable that when they are so much cautious about safe-keeping of the ornaments, the husband of the accused shall not remain present to see that the ornaments are put in the right place. ( 15 ) AFTER giving my careful consideration to the entire episode as appearing from the evidence on record and the omission on the part of the complainant to take the help of hand-writing expert, I come to the conclusion that the story of entrustment of ornaments have not 'been proved. It is true, that no outsider is expected to remain at the time of alleged entrustment but at the same time the evidence given by the three witnesses on this point need be scrutinised very carefully in view of the strained relationship between the complainant and her sons on the one hand and the accused on the other which culminated in institution of number of cases both civil and criminal against the accused and issuance of search warrant in a number of cases. As such on proper appreciation on the evidence of the record, I come to the conclusion that the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate rightly passed an order of acquittal and there is absolutely no reason to interfere with the finding. The criminal appeal is accordingly dismissed on merit. Appeal dismissed.