6 and defendant No.
Ultimately, however, all the accused were acquitted.
V. Gupte, Solicitor General and R. C. Prasad, for respondents Nos.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated April 14, 1961 of the Patna High Court in Appeal from Original Decree No.
A large number of witnesses were examined and the Subordinate Judge came to the companyclusion that the cheque in question was a forged and fabricated document and that defendants 4, 5 and 7 acting in companylusion and companyspiracy with one another had withdrawn the sum of Rs.
K. Sen, B. R. L. Iyengar and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the appellants.
Under a Resolution dated the 16th April, 1947 of the Executive Committee of the Union, the defendant No.
Defendants Nos.
Defendants 1 and 2 only went up in appeal to the Patna High Court.
The bank was sought to be made liable on the ground that it was a trustee for the Union and had abused the trust by allowing the amount in question to be embezzled through its gross negligence.
It appears that on the 16th of April, 1948 a sum of Rs.
The cause of action for the suit as against defendants 3 to 7 was that they, in companylusion and companyspiracy with one another had authorised an illegal withdrawal of Rs.
The suit was instituted by the two plaintiffs against seven defendants, all of whom have already been mentioned except the second defendant who was the Manager of the Bank and in charge of its affairs and management at the relevant time.
He, however, thought that there was numbersufficient evidence against defendants 3 and 6 and passed a decree as against defendants 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7 jointly.
Criminal proceedings were started and five defendants including defendants Nos.
All the defendants put in written statements, some doing so jointly while others did so individually.
The only companytesting respondents are the Bank of Bihar Ltd., Madan Mohan Pandit and Babu Lal Varma defendants 1, 2 and 6 in the suit .
7 went to the bank to encase a cheque on behalf of the Union and then they came to learn that the funds in the account of the Union were number sufficient to meet the cheque.
7 but the purported signature of the defendant No.
The second plaintiff was a Secretary of the Union at the time when the suit was filed in 1951.
1 and 2.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Mitter J. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the Patna High Court on a certificate granted by it.
S Sinha, K. N. Srivastava and K. K. Sinha, for respondent No.
7, the Treasurer of the Union, were jointly authorised to withdraw moneys of the Union from the 1st defendant, the Bank of Bihar Ltd., with which it had a running account.
11,000/ out of funds of the Union lying with the bank.
The first appellant, Bihta Co operative Development Cane Marketing Union Ltd. hereinafter referred to as the Union is a society registered under the Bihar and Orissa Co operative Societies Act, 1935 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
699 of 1964.
The appellants before this Court are the plaintiffs.
6 thereon was found to be a forgery at the trial of the suit.
The Subordinate Judge decreed the suit against several of the defendants including the Bank of Bihar Ltd. On appeal, the learned Judges of the Patna High Court companycurred, in the main, with the findings of the Subordinate Judge but gave effect to the companytention raised on behalf of two of the defendant appellants on the basis of s. 48 9 read with s. 57 of the Act.
6, Babu Lal Varma, Joint Secretary of the Union and Ram Janame Varma, defendant No.
6 and defendant No.
11,000/ from the plaintiffs account with the bank fraudulently by means of the said forged cheque.
On the 26th of May, 1948, defendant No.
11,000/ had been withdrawn from the said account by means of a cheque which did number companye out of the cheque book of the Union and that a loose cheque form surrendered by an ex constituent of the bank issued to someone on the 23rd March, 1948 had been companyverted into a cheque purporting to bear the signatures of defendant No.
This point was number taken in the written statement of any of the defendants.
162 of 1955.
In order to find out whether s. 48 1 embraces the dispute between the parties in this case, we have to examine the facts out of which this appeal arises.
6 and 7 were put on trial.
3, 4 and 5 were employees of the defendant bank.
