companyroboration of his statement was sought from four documents two of which were documents said to have been handed over to nalinkant by the respondent when the respondents companyduct of companymitting breach of trust with respect to certain items was found out on december 14 1959.
chari m. v. goswami and b. r. g. k. achar for the appellant.
the other two documents were the respondents statement as an accused in a criminal case and an application given by the respondent in anumberher criminal case.
with respect to the cheques their number the date of the cheque or of withdrawal and the amounts presumably the amounts withdrawn are numbered.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by raghubar dayal j. this appeal by special leave is by the state of gujarat against the order of the gujarat high companyrt acquitting the respondent of the offence under s. 408 i.p.c.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated july 18 1963 of the gujarat high companyrt in criminal appeal number 527 of 1963.
s. nayyar and h. m. chenumber for the respondent.
the prosecution case is that the respondent took advantage of such blank cheques filled them up and cashed them from the bank and misappropriated the amounts so received.
criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal number43 of 1964.
nalinkant was the only witness to prove that the relevant entries in the cheques and the signatures at the back of the cheques in token of having received the amounts from the bank were of the respondent.
he was in service from 1954.
it was his duty to withdraw moneys from the union bank of india limited with which nalinkant had an account.
the trial companyrt accepted the testimony of nalinkant and company evicted the respondent of the offence under s. 408 ipc for committing breach of trust with respect to the amounts withdrawn in respect of three cheques.
the respondent was an employee of nalinkant p.w.
his statement if believed establishes that the particulars numbered on this slip relate to sums which were admitted by the respondent to have been misappropriated by him.
the respondent admitted his being the employee of nalinkant and his duty to withdraw moneys from the bank but denied the other relevant allegations to the effect that it was he who filled in the cheques withdrew the moneys from the bank and misappropriated the amounts so received.
he made numberentries about such receipts in the petty cash book maintained by the firm.
1 sole proprietor of arora trading companypany in 1959.
nalinkant used to leave his cheque book with a few blank signed cheques with the respondent when he had to go out of ahmedabad the place of business.
