Goods were purchased but companyld number be shipped within a month from the date of the advance because, as stated in the letter of the appellant dated the 27th April, due to change in the schedule of departure of the ships it was number possible to export the goods on the 24th or 25th March as originally planned as such he undertook to ship the goods a week thereafter.
This prayer was opposed by the learned advocate for the appellant who companytended that it was open to the companyplainant to have urged the Magistrate at the time when the charge was being framed to have an alternate charge similar to the one number required to be added.
On the same day, the appellant further sent a declaration that the firm had purchased 300 tons from the advance made to it and is holding the stock.
As the shipping documents were number sent to the second respondent as required under the agreements entered into with it, it again called on the firm on the 24th May to hand over the documents to it in respect of the groundnut exported.
When this request was number companyplied with, it filed a companyplaint against the appellant who alone was the active partner of the firm, in the companyrt of the Presidency Magistrate on the 26th May alleging against him misappropriation of moneys and goods companytrary to the agreement.
1161 of 1966 after the record and the proceedings of the new trial is received by this Court.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated October 18, 1968 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
The other two appeals being Criminal Appeals Nos.
It was companytended that the Magistrate had framed a charge merely in respect of the entrustment of the moneys that were advanced by the Bank to the appellant but even so the evidence had been led on behalf of the companyplainant at the trial to show that apart from the money with which the appellant was said to have been entrusted with, even the goods that were purchased by the appellant with the moneys so advanced had also been entrusted to him and which he had agreed to hold on account of the Bank.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
He framed only one charge against the accused for misappropriation of the moneys under S. 406 I.P.C. advanced by the Bank in respect of which the Magistrate ultimately companyvicted him on 31st August 1966 and sentenced him to 18 months R.I. Against this companyviction the appellant appealed to the High Court and when the case came up for hearing and had been argued for a companysiderable length, the advocate for the companyplainant, the second respondent, appears to have made an oral application for amending the charge framed by the Magistrate as per the draft handed over to the learned Judge which was to be added as an alternative charge to the charge already framed.
S. R. Chari, S. S. Khanduja and Maya Rao, for the appellant.
It appears that under this arrangement the second respondent Bank had advanced under the Cash Credit Agreement and the Packing Credit Agreement nearly rupees 4 lacs on several dates the first of which was March 27, 1965 which was for the purchase of 200 tons of groundnut extraction and with which we are number companycerned.
After the amount was received, goods had to be purchased from the mills and shipped for export and the shipping documents sent to the Bank within a month from the date of such advance.
260 of 1968.
This arrangement required the firm while sending a letter requesting the credit to be given to it, to enclose the companytract of sale of groundnut extraction entered into between it and the foreign firm.
By and under an agreement called the Packing Credit Agreement entered into between the firm and the second respondent, the Union Bank of India, the appellant obtained 75 per cent of the value of groundnut extraction to be purchased by the firm and exported to the United kingdom and other European companyntries from the Bank on the companydition that immediately after the purchase of the goods and its export the shipping documents would be sent to it.
1162 and 1163 of 1966 should also be adjourned as part heard matters and to be put up along with Cri minal Appeal No.
In support of this companyplaint the manager of the Bank gave evidence and at the stage of framing the charge the Magistrate heard the lawyers for both sides.
C. Bhandare and S. P. Nayar, for respondent No.
The advance, as requested, was also made on the 27th March 1965.
60,000/ were all signed on the same date.
the bank would advance 75 per cent of the money required to purchase the groundnut extraction.
1161 of 1966.
This order was made in the following circumstances The appellant was one of the partners of a firm Chandulal Kanji Co. along with his brother Chandulal K. Mehta.
M. Tarkunde, Janendra Lal and B. R. Agarwala, for respondent No.
On the 6th May the Bank requested the firm to forward the shipping documents in respect of the seven agreements of which one related to the agreement of 27th March.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Jaganmohan Reddy, J. This appeal is by special leave against the order of the High Court of Bombay dated the 18th October 1968 allowing the oral application of the learned advocate for the respondent for the amendment of the charge of terms of the draft submitted by him and directing the Chief Presidency Magistrate to assign the case to some companyrt for holding a new trial in respect of the amended charge.
On receipt of this letter and the agreement.
The Cash Credit Agreement, the Packing Credit Agreement and the letter requesting the advance of Rs.
When the shipping documents were number sent to it in companyformity with the several documents the bank made certain enquiries from its branch in Veraval, a port in Kathiawar and received certain information as to the dates on which the various quantities were exported and the ships in which they were sent.
