JUDGMENT 1. - Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned P.P. I am of the opinion that this petition merits acceptance. 2. An FIR was lodged by Ramratan PW2 alleging that the petitioner is guilty of offence under Section 406 IPC. The allegations against the petitioner were that the complainant has pledged certain ornaments with the accused person on 21.6.1973. When he asked to redeem the pledge, the accused refused to give the same. He further stated that finally as per the account of accused the principal amount and interest payable came to Rs.3020/- which was demanded by the accused. Fie went to the accused with Rs.3100/- for paying the same to him and further to redeem the pledge. At that stage the accused petitioner denied to deliver the pledged articles and stated that he would not return the ornaments and he would also recovery the amount due from him. This is alleged to have happened on 11th August, 1977. 3. When police started investigation on 12th August, 1977, the accused delivered the articles in question to the police. 4. After trial, the learned trial Court found on the basis of statement of complainant stating that even after he went with amount of Rs.3100/- to pay the principal and interest demanded by the petitioner, still he refused to deliver the articles, amounts to dishonestly misappropriating the ornaments entrusted to him and thus convicted him under Section 406 IPC and sentenced him to six months RI with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. About the ornaments which were in the custody of the Court, it was ordered that since pledge by the complainant is admitted and he had not paid the amount offered to the accused nor the amount has been deposited in the Court, the same may be retained with the prosecution agency until the parties settle the dispute through civil Court. 5. The appeal against this judgment was dismissed by the learned appellate Court on 16.4.1994. 6. 5. The appeal against this judgment was dismissed by the learned appellate Court on 16.4.1994. 6. Having perused the two orders and the admitted facts that the goods in question were pledged with the petitioner-accused against which he has advanced certain amount as loan which according to the complainant was totalling 1525/- and that amount has still not been paid to the petitioner-accused either before the lodging of the complaint or after the ornaments in question were recovered and were in police custody and no effort has been made to make the payment of amount due under the pledge and taking ornaments from the custody of the police highly probabilise the defence that the dispute arises from a contractual obligation giving rise to civil dispute between the parties and it is not a case where the criminal prosecution ought to have been launched. 7. From the arguments which have been raised before the learned trial Judge, it appears that the complainant has not paid the amount of pledge for sufficient time, and probability cannot be excluded that having not redeemed the pledge for long time, and considering that a civil suit for redeeming the pledge may have become time barred the petitioner-accused may have denied to return the pledged articles and refused to receive the amount offered by the complainant. Whether this plea was right or not is not relevant but in the circumstances, it cannot be ruled out that there exist a dispute between the parties to pledge in respect of the contract of pledge which was purely of civil nature and did not invite criminal trial. There is not an iota of evidence on which the foundation of dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner could be inferred, which is essential requirements to prove offence of criminal breach of trust by misappropriation of property 8. As a result, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The order impugned convicting and sentencing the petitioner is set aside. The petitioner is already on bail, his bail bonds are discharged.Revision allowed. *******