1996 (12) TMI 403 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the ratio in Pratibha Rani vs. Suraj Kumar & Anr.
2. Whether the appellant made out a prima facie case of entrustment.
3. Whether the complaint was time-barred under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Summary:

1. Validity of the ratio in Pratibha Rani vs. Suraj Kumar & Anr:
The Supreme Court revisited the ratio in Pratibha Rani vs. Suraj Kumar & Anr., [(1985) 2 SCC 370], which held that stridhana property is the exclusive property of the wife. The majority view was reaffirmed, stating that failure to return stridhana property constitutes a breach of trust u/s 405 IPC, punishable under Section 406 IPC. The minority view, which required a special agreement for entrustment, was not accepted.

2. Prima Facie Case of Entrustment:
The Court found that the appellant had made out a prima facie case of entrustment of her stridhana property to the respondent. The complaint indicated that the appellant's parents entrusted the jewellery and household goods to the respondent at the time of her farewell. The appellant alleged that despite repeated demands, the respondent refused to return the stridhana properties. The Court held that these averments constituted a prima facie case of criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC.

3. Limitation Period:
The Court addressed whether the complaint filed in September 1990 was time-barred. Section 468 of the Code prescribes a three-year limitation period for offenses punishable with imprisonment up to three years. The appellant demanded the return of her stridhana on December 5, 1987, and the respondent refused. Thus, the complaint filed within three years from this date was within the limitation period. The High Court's conclusion that the complaint was time-barred was based on an incorrect interpretation of the evidence.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and directed the trial court to proceed with the case from the stage at which it was pending. The observations made were solely for determining the prima facie case and should not influence the trial court's final decision.