Locker Renting Agreement Can't Be Equated With 'Bailment' Between Hirer and Bank: Jharkhand High Court

The Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi observed, “In view of the above, it appears that the locker is the nature of agreement, in view of that the hiring agreement cannot be equated with the bailment. Furthermore the said operation of the locker was the agreement and the same can be terminated by a person in his favour the said locker is provided.”

“In view of that hiring of a locker is a transaction to be distinct in nature from a transaction that would create the relationship of landlord and tenant. Whatever property is deposited in the locker is undoubtedly in the custody and possession of the Bank, merely because the locker can be operated only in the presence of the locker hirer, could not amount to joint possession of the locker,” Justice Dwivedi added.

The case revolved around a disagreement concerning the alleged theft of jewelry from a locker rented by a customer at a bank. The Trial Court initiated legal action against the bank employees, accusing them of offenses under Sections 380, 409, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 .

The petitioners, who were officers of Punjab National Bank (PNB), are facing charges related to the purported theft of gold articles from a locker at the bank. They argue that there is insufficient evidence against them and are requesting the dismissal of the case.

The complainant, who owns the locker, stated that he discovered the missing gold articles when he opened his locker. Since the police took no action, the complainant filed a protest petition, prompting the court to acknowledge the matter and subsequently issue summons to the petitioners.

The petitioners approached the High Court, seeking the quashing of criminal proceedings, including the order acknowledging the offenses under various sections of the IPC, such as Sections 380, 409, and 34. They argued that the order was based on a complaint that did not reveal any cognizable offense and asserted that the Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to take cognizance of the matter.

The court observed that the jewelry was absent from the bank's locker. Nevertheless, the court determined that the bank could not be held responsible for the loss of the jewelry as the legal relationship between the bank and the individual renting the locker did not constitute a bailment.

The Court futrher observed, “Banker can always open the locker with a master key, the hirer of the locker is not in a position to open the locker without the assistance of the Bank. The hirer can only access the locker only specified banking hour.”

“The Banker has no such limitation. If such a situation is there, the transaction of bailment could only be established if the provisions of Section 148 of the Indian Contract Act are complied,” the Court held while allowing the Petitions and set aside the order taking cognizance.

Counsel/s For the Petitioners : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate. : Mr. Manindra Kumar Sinha, Advocate

Counsel/s For the State : Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, A.P.P. : Mrs. Ruby Pandey, A.P.P. : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, A.P.P

Counsel/s For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Pawan Kumar Pathak, Advocate.

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 86

Case Title: Mahesh Minz & Ors vs The State of Jharkhand & Anr

Case No.: Cr.M.P. No. 1519 of 2009

Click Here To Read/Download Judgement