LI Network
Published on: December 02, 2023 at 17:20 IST
The Jharkhand High Court dismissed a case involving alleged jewelry theft from a bank locker, asserting that renting a locker doesn’t create a bailment relationship between the bank and the customer.
The case stemmed from a dispute over missing jewelry from a customer’s bank locker. Initially, the Trial Court charged bank employees under sections 380, 409, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
The High Court clarified that for a bailment relationship, adherence to Section 148 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (ICA) is crucial, highlighting specific legal criteria necessary for such banking arrangements.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi noted that hiring a locker is distinct from a bailment relationship, mentioning that it cannot be equated with a landlord-tenant association.
The defendants, officers of Punjab National Bank (PNB), sought dismissal of the case, stating a lack of evidence against them. The complainant alleged discovering missing gold articles from their locker, prompting a protest petition and court summons for the defendants.
The High Court emphasized that while jewelry was absent from the bank locker, the bank wasn’t liable as the bank-customer relationship didn’t constitute bailment.
The ruling highlighted the bank’s possession and control over the locker, including its accessibility limited to specified banking hours. Notably, the bank possesses a master key enabling anytime access, unlike the customer.
The court acknowledged an ongoing civil suit linked to the case, cautioning against prolonged proceedings without clear evidence of criminal activity, stating that simultaneous civil and criminal actions are justified only when criminality is established.
Case Title: Mahesh Minz v The State of Jharkhand
