Punjab National Bank v Surendra Prasad Sinha 1992 a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India which revolves around the legal implications of a bank adjusting a time-barred loan against a Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) provided by a guarantor. It raised an important question on the distinction between extinguishment of remedy and right under the Limitation Act, and whether such adjustment could amount to criminal breach of trust. Explore other important Landmark Judgements.

Punjab National Bank v Surendra Prasad Sinha 1992 Historical Context and Facts

The case Punjab National Bank and ors v Surendra Prasad Sinha 1992 centres around a dispute between a guarantor and a bank regarding the adjustment of a Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) against a time-barred loan. The Respondent, having stood as a guarantor for a borrower who later defaulted, alleged that the bank’s unilateral adjustment of his matured FDR after the loan had become barred by limitation constituted criminal misappropriation. The matter escalated to a criminal complaint which led to the challenge before the Supreme Court. The following are the brief facts of Punjab National Bank v Surendra Prasad Sinha 1992 -

Loan Sanction and Security

On 5th May, 1984, the Appellant Bank (Bank-Appellant No. 1) sanctioned a loan of Rs. 15,000 to a borrower named S.N. Dubey. As guarantors, the Respondent and his wife executed a security bond in favour of the Bank. To secure the repayment, they also submitted a Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) valued at Rs. 24,000. The FDR matured on 1st November, 1988, with a total value of Rs. 41,292.

Default by Principal Debtor

The principal borrower, S.N. Dubey, failed to repay the loan. Upon maturity of the FDR, the Bank Manager (Appellant No. 5) adjusted Rs. 27,037.60 from the maturity value to cover the dues of the principal borrower as of December 1988. The remaining amount of Rs. 14,254.40 was credited to the Savings Bank account of the Respondent.

Criminal Complaint by Respondent

The Respondent subsequently filed a private criminal complaint against the Bank and its officials before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, under Section 409, Section 109 and Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The allegations made in the complaint were:

• The loan became time-barred on 5th May, 1987, under the Law of Limitation.
• As the guarantor’s liability is co-extensive with that of the borrower, the liability of the Respondent also stood extinguished as of that date.
• Despite this, on 14th January, 1989, the Bank adjusted the matured FDR to recover the time-barred dues without initiating legal proceedings.
• This action allegedly amounted to criminal misappropriation and wrongful embezzlement by the bank officials.

High Court Proceedings & Appeal Before the Supreme Court

The High Court refused to quash the criminal complaint which prompted the Appellants to challenge the decision. Aggrieved by the order of the High Court, the Bank and its officials filed a Criminal Appeal by Special Leave before the Supreme Court of India and sought to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them.

Download Punjab National Bank v Surendra Prasad Sinha 1992 Free PDF

The following issues were addressed in Punjab National Bank v Surendra Prasad Sinha 1992 -

• Whether adjustment of a time-barred debt from a security deposit constitutes criminal misappropriation under Section 409 IPC?

The Supreme Court examined if recovering a time-barred loan by adjusting it against an FDR held as security could be deemed a dishonest act amounting to criminal breach of trust.

• Whether the limitation period under the Limitation Act extinguishes the debt itself or merely the remedy to recover it through a suit? 

The main issue in Punjab National Bank v Surendra Prasad Sinha was whether the expiration of the limitation period under Section 3 of the Limitation Act wipes out the right to the debt or only bars the legal remedy of filing a suit.

• Whether the bank’s action in adjusting the matured FDR without initiating legal proceedings was in breach of trust or contractual terms?

The Court in Punjab National Bank and ors v Surendra Prasad Sinha had to decide if the bank’s unilateral action to recover the debt from the FDR violated the terms of the contract or attracted penal consequences.

• Whether the Magistrate’s issuance of process against bank officials was justified

Lastly, the Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank v Surendra Prasad Sinha also considered whether the Magistrate was justified in the issuing process under Sections 409, 109, and 114 IPC.

Punjab National Bank v Surendra Prasad Sinha 1992 Legal Provisions involved

In Punjab National Bank v Surendra Prasad Sinha 1992, Section 3 of Limitation Act, 1963 played an important role. The following is the analysis of this provision -

Section 3 of Limitation Act, 1963

Section 3 of the Act mandates that every suit instituted after the prescribed period of limitation shall be dismissed, even if the limitation has not been pleaded as a defence. The Punjab National Bank and Ors v Surendra Prasad Sinha case hinged on whether the debt was legally recoverable after the expiry of limitation.

The Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank v Surendra Prasad Sinha 1992 cautiously examined the implications of adjusting a time-barred debt against a security deposit. The Court noted the following :

Time-Barred Debt Does Not Extinguish the Right

The Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank v. Surendra Prasad Sinha explained that rules of limitation are meant to bar the remedy, not the right itself. According to Section 3 of the Limitation Act, while a legal remedy may be time-barred, the underlying right to recover the debt continues to exist. A debt does not cease to exist merely because the limitation period for filing a suit has expired. The only exception would be where the statute expressly extinguishes the right, which is not the case here.

Right to Adjust Time-Barred Debt From Security

Even though the bank could no longer file a suit to recover the loan due to the expiry of the limitation period, it was still legally entitled to adjust the outstanding debt from the security (the FDR) held in its custody. This action was in line with the contractual understanding between the parties and did not constitute criminal breach of trust under Section 409 IPC. The Court in Punjab National Bank v Surendra Prasad Sinha stated that the act of adjusting a lawful debt from available security was not dishonest nor did it involve misappropriation.

Validity of the Action of the Bank

The Court in Punjab National Bank and ors v Surendra Prasad Sinha noted that the bank had legal possession of the Fixed Deposit Receipt, which had been entrusted to it by the respondent and his wife as guarantors for the repayment of the principal debtor’s loan. Thus, the bank rightfully appropriated a portion of the matured amount toward the unpaid debt and credited the balance to the respondent’s account. The action did not violate any law, nor was it a dishonest conversion of the respondent's property.

Magistrate Issuance of Process

The Court in Punjab National Bank v Surendra Prasad Sinha observed that the Magistrate acted mechanically by issuing process against all the Appellants without properly analysing whether the allegations made in the complaint prima facie disclosed a criminal offence. This failure to scrutinize the legal responsibility of each accused was a serious lapse.

High Court Error in Refusing to Quash the Complaint

The High Court erred in refusing to quash the complaint, wrongly concluding that the bank’s actions were “prima facie high-handed.” The Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank v Surendra Prasad Sinha highlighted that the criminal justice system must not be misused as a tool for harassment or vengeance. The Courts must ensure that criminal proceedings are not initiated against individuals or corporate entities without sufficient legal basis, especially where no criminal intent or wrongful gain is evident.

Punjab National Bank v Surendra Prasad Sinha Final Outcome

The Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank v Surendra Prasad Sinha allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the High Court and quashed the criminal complaint filed against the bank and its officials. The Court reiterated that merely exercising a contractual right to adjust dues from security, even if the debt is time-barred for recovery through suit, does not attract criminal liability.

Conclusion

In Punjab National Bank v Surendra Prasad Sinha 1992 the Supreme Court on 20th April 1992 explained that adjusting a time-barred debt from a security does not amount to criminal misappropriation. It upheld the contractual right of the bank and quashed the criminal complaint. It bolstered that limitation bars the remedy, not the right.