JUDGMENT 1. - This is a revision under section 397/401 Cr.P.C. against the order of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Udaipur dated 1.8.1996 by which he framed charge under section 406 IPC against the petitioner. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor. 3. The facts of the case are that Nasrin Bano was married to Iqbal Hussain on 21.10.1990. The allegation is that she was ill-treated so she left the house of the husband on 23.10.1991. She was living with her parents. On 5.7.1995 she filed a complaint before the Magistrate which was forwarded u /s. 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the Police Station, Dhan Mandi, Udaipur. After investigation, police submitted challan on 30.9.1995 and vide impugned order dated 1.8.1996 learned Magistrate framed charge under section 406 IPC against the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the charge could not have been framed against the petitioner, firstly, because prosecution was barred by limitation and secondly, the ornaments have been handed over by the petitioner on 23.9.1995. He also submitted that there was no allegation of entrustment or misappropriation and there was no allegation of any demand of dowry articles. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor has repelled all these arguments and tried to support the order of the learned Magistrate. 6. I have gone through the evidence recorded during the investigation. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner first submitted that the prosecution is barred by limitation because the complaint, on the basis of which FIR was registered, was filed after four years. In this regard, he cited Punjab and Haryana High Court Judgment given in Gurdev Singh v. Rajinder Singh, reported in 1990 (1) All India Cr.L.R. 133 , wherein it has been held that the offence under section 406 IPC was not a continuing offence and stood committed once for all. It was so observed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M. Punchhi in Waryam Singh v. State of Punjab,1982 Cr.L.J. (NLO.C.) 137 (Punjab and Haryana), which was followed in this citation. The view of the Rajasthan High Court about offence under section 406 of IPC is available in Azizul Haq v. State of Rajasthan; 1993 (2) RLR 695 , wherein it has been observed that mere entrustment or domain of property alone is not sufficient to make out an offence under section 406 IPC. The view of the Rajasthan High Court about offence under section 406 of IPC is available in Azizul Haq v. State of Rajasthan; 1993 (2) RLR 695 , wherein it has been observed that mere entrustment or domain of property alone is not sufficient to make out an offence under section 406 IPC. But apart from it, necessary ingredient of the offence under section 406 is that a person to whom the property is entrusted, dishonestly misappropriates or converts it to his own use or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law. In view of these citations, the offence is not continuing one and the complaint was barred under section 468 IPC. Even otherwise, in view of Azizul Haq's case (supra) the necessary ingredients with regard to Section 406 IPC are not available on record. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner in the end cited Krishan Lai & Ors. v. Devinder Kumari, 1991 (1) All India Cr.L.R. 386 , wherein the circumstances were such that the articles of so called dowry were left by the wife at the premises of her husband and were returned to her in proceedings conducted through the police. It was held that it was a relevant circumstance and petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. was allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the memo of recovery dated 23.9.1995 which mentions that the petitioner had returned the articles. In view of Krishanlal's case (supra) this is a relevant consideration. 9. The sum total of discussion is that the prosecution of the petitioner was barred under section 468 Cr.P.C. and that no case under section 406 IPC was made out in the facts and circumstances of this case. Therefore, the revision is allowed and the order of the learned Magistrate is set aside.Revision allowed. *******