Judgment : Revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.230 of 2008 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Earnakulam. The Sub Inspector of Police, Central Police Station filed a charge sheet against the revision petitioner alleging offence under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. With an allegation that on 13.12.2002, the revision petitioner obtained a loan of Rs.10,00,000/- from the State Bank of India, M.G.Road branch after pleading 3.501 cents of land comprised in Sy.No.330/12 of Elamkulam village, which was obtained by the revision petitioner by virtue D.No.4287/02. As per the allegations in the charge sheet, the said property was earlier mortgaged before the State Bank of Travancore, Panampilly Nagar branch and he availed a loan of Rs.4,70,000/-. It is suppressing that liability and fraudulently making the defacto complainant, the Chief Manager of the State Bank of India, M.G. Road branch believe that there was no liability charged upon the properties the revision petitioner obtained the loan of Rs.10,00,000/- and that after closing the liability in favour of the S.B.T., the property was sold to third parties without the knowledge of the bank. 2. The learned Magistrate took cognizance. Issued process to the revision petitioner. On his appearance, after furnishing the copy of the charge sheet and connected records the revision petitioner and the prosecution were heard and framed charge for offence under Section 406 and 420 IPC. 3. Contending that there is no prima facie material to send the revision petitioner for trial for offence under Section 406 or 420 IPC. and that the charge framed is without any allegation regarding the ingredients of the above said offence, the revision petitioner seeks an order to quash the impugned charge. 4. The revision petitioner and the public prosecutor were heard. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterated the contentions raised in the memorandum of revision. 5. The law was put in motion upon the basis of a statement given by CW1, the Chief Manager, State Bank of India. According to him, he came to know that on the basis of a duplicate document the revision petitioner had availed a loan of Rs.Ten Lakhs and thereby the revision petitioner cheated the bank. It is also stated that the revision petitioner suppressed the factum of availing a loan from State Bank of Travancore after pleading the original document. According to him, he came to know that on the basis of a duplicate document the revision petitioner had availed a loan of Rs.Ten Lakhs and thereby the revision petitioner cheated the bank. It is also stated that the revision petitioner suppressed the factum of availing a loan from State Bank of Travancore after pleading the original document. However, there is no mention in the first information statement that the revision petitioner made the defacto complainant believe that there was no liability charged upon the property which was offered as security. In his further statement also there is no such whisper. What is stated is that the duplicate copy of the document and other connected records were produced by the revision petitioner and it was sent for legal scrutiny of the panel lawyer and no defacto noticed and the loan was granted. At the same time he would admit that there was no ban for granting loan on the basis of a duplicate copy of the document. 6. The 2nd witness in the charge (CW2)was the officer who sanctioned the loan. In his statement it is mentioned that the loan was granted after perusing all the documents. According to him, the loan was granted on the belief that the documents produced are original. In his statement also there is no mention that the revision petitioner fraudulently made the witness believe that there was no liability charged upon the property offered as security or that there was any fraudlent inducement to part with money. There is no mention that had he been aware of the earlier liability, the loan in dispute wouldn’t have been granted. No other witness cited by the prosecution mention about the nature of the transaction. The statement of the above witness, even if taken at its face value wouldn’t constitute offence under Section 406 or 420 IPC. No fraudulent or dishonest inducement to part with money is alleged. At the most what can be inferred is lack of vigil in scrutinizing the document. No deception can be inferred. 7. For a correct appraisal, a reading of Section 420 IPC would be appropriate: “Sec.420. No fraudulent or dishonest inducement to part with money is alleged. At the most what can be inferred is lack of vigil in scrutinizing the document. No deception can be inferred. 7. For a correct appraisal, a reading of Section 420 IPC would be appropriate: “Sec.420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property:- Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.” 8. From what is stated earlier, it can be seen that there is little material in support of the allegation that an offence under Sec.420 IPC was committed. Even if there occurred any failure on the part of the loaner that may not amount to any act or omission on the side of the revision petitioner so as to prosecute him. The position should have been different, if there is an allegation that the loanee made the loaner believe that there was no liability charged upon the property. Conspicuously such an allegation is absent. Result is that there is no allegation regarding the commission of offence under Sec.420 IPC so as to send the revision petitioner for trial for such offence. 9. Since it is a case of loan transaction, there is no entrustment of property so as to commit breach of trust to constitute offence under Sec. 406 IPC even if there is no prompt payment and the mortgaged property was subsequently sold. A reading of Sec.405 IPC which defines breach of trust would be quite appropriate: “Sec. 405. Criminal breach of trust:- Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or willfully suffers any other person so to do, commits “criminal breach of trust”. Granting of loan by a bank to a customer and his spending it for the purpose for which loan was availed would not amount to entrustment with property or dominion over the property or its dishonest misappropriation so as to constitute an offence of breach of trust. Here there is no case that the loan amount was appropriated, used or disposed for any purpose other than for which the loan was availed. On the other hand the allegation is that there is no prompt payment. Failure to promptly pay back a loan wouldn’t amount to a breach of trust as defined in Section 405 IPC, though it may amount to an a breach of contract for which civil action can be initiated. 10. There is yet another allegation that after clearing the first loan, the property was sold. Even if the property is mortgaged to the bank, sale of mortgagor’s right is not forbidden by law. Such sale also may not amount to a breach of trust so as to be prosecuted. Such sale in no way affects the mortgagee’s right. It would be subject to the right of the mortgagee. Mortgagee can ignore such sale and enforce his right. As regard the sale of property by the revision petitioners, the principle of the maxim ‘Nemo dat quid non habet’ – ‘no man can transfer better title than he himself has’, applies. For such sale, the revision petitioners are not liable to be prosecuted for breach of trust. So, in fact, there is little material on record so as to send the revision petitioner to face trial for an offence under Sec. 406 IPC also. 11. The question which comes then is whether this court should interfere at this stage. I answer in the affirmative. To accuse and prosecute a person is not a small issue. It is a very serious matter substantially affecting the liberty of the accused. Unless there are sufficient allegations to constitute an offence, no man shall be asked to face trial. In an identical case in Narayanan v. Vidhydharan (1989(2) KLT 613), referring to the decisions in Madhu Limaye v. The State of Maharashtra (AIR 1978 SC 47) and V.C. Shukla v. State (AIR 1980 SC 962), it is held in para.8 as follows:- “Framing of charges is a very important matter substantially affecting the liberty of the accused. In an identical case in Narayanan v. Vidhydharan (1989(2) KLT 613), referring to the decisions in Madhu Limaye v. The State of Maharashtra (AIR 1978 SC 47) and V.C. Shukla v. State (AIR 1980 SC 962), it is held in para.8 as follows:- “Framing of charges is a very important matter substantially affecting the liberty of the accused. Such an order is not to be treated as a purely interlocutory one. It is revisable by exercise of the powers under S.397(1) of the Code.” The ratio of the above decision squarely applies to the case on hand. I find that the revision petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court at the appropriate time. The impugned charge is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. In the result, this revision petition is allowed. The impugned charge is set aside. The revision petitioner shall stand discharged of under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.