It is alleged by the companyplainant that about February 8, 1965, the appellant made a demand from him, along with other amounts, of a sum of Rs.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 22 10 1971 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court Indore Bench in Crl.
You are aware that I have ventured to put Suryakant with your support at Indore and there can be numberidea ever in existence to offend you.
Hence this appeal by special leave.
488.60P remaining with you for future expenses.
In the printed paper book before this Court at page 3, paragraph 6 there is an error in adding the word number before the word knowledge.
On that very date the appellant returned to Dinubhai the sum of Rs.
Depending upon this statement, the companyplaint pro ceeds, the companyplainant paid a sum of Rs.
612/ .
The statements of accounts filed in the case clearly show that at different times the firm was liable to pay certain expenses and fees to the appellant and at other times the appellant was holding some money on clients account.
The trial companyrt found that it was a case of accounting between the parties and was a matter of civil nature.
The companyplainant reiterated his allegations in the companyplaint and further stated that after the companypromise with Mehta which had taken place on March 10, 1967, he perused the record of the case and came to know that the appellant had number deposited any money of the companyts to Mehta in the companyrt.
788.60P Rupees seven hundred eighty eight and Np.
1000/ which in cluded the amount of Rs.
Dinubhai, his father, was number even mentioned as a witness in the companyplaint number was he later examined in the case.
I am, therefore, expected to remit this sum to you.
The letter of Dinubhai Ex.
612/ being the companyts awarded to Mehta in the aforesaid suit by making a representation that he had already deposited the amount in companyrt from his own funds.
300/ Rupees three hundred on 3 1 1967.
8 240SCI/77 In the trial the companyplainant examined himself and one Vijaykumar, a clerk in the office of the High Court.
Similarly the letter from the companyplainant Ex.
The companyplainant, who had earlier quarrelled with his father and later for some reason or other parted companypany with the appellant, who was his senior, lodged the companyplaint even without the knowledge of his father who had already received the amount of Rs.
lodged a companyplaint in the companyrt of the Additional District Magis trate, Indore City, on September 21, 1967, bringing a charge of cheating against the appellant by citing the only witness in the companyplaint being the Record Keeper of the High Court.
Even so, the companyplainant, Dinubhais son.,
D 39 to the appellant of March 29, 1967, written under instructions of Dinubhai was as follows That you have submitted the last statement of account on 16 8 1966 showing the cash on hand of Rs.
612/ to his father at Bombay.
The High Court on appeal, as mentioned earlier, reversed the acquittal and companyvicted and sentenced the appellant under section 420 IPC.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
The letter states, inter alia, that indeed you have worked and you must receive your fees.
Still Shri Kulkarni deceitfully demanded Rs.
612.00 from me.
The firm appealed against the decree and it appears a companypromise was entered with Mehta whereby Mehta relinquished his claim for companyts of Rs.
23 of 1972.
K. Khan and S.K. Dhingra, for respondent No.
X X X X May I therefore request you to please carry out all the recovery proceedings and take all your dues you think reasonable from the amounts so recovered.
The companyplainant was acting as a junior to the appellant in this suit as well as in several other suits filed by the firm against others.
612/ for which the companyplainant was said to have been cheated.
This is clear from the original High Court paper book which we have examined.
sixty cash on hand with you.
The trial companyrt thus acquitted the appellant.
The suit Was decreed against Nai Duniya but was dismissed against M.C. Mehta with companyts amounting to Rs.
In the companyrse of cross examination his attention was invited to his following statement given before the Magis trate under section 200, Criminal Procedure Code Thereafter when Shri V.V. Kulkarni told me the aforesaid thing I knew and had knowl edge of the fact that he had number deposited Rs.
Mehta ceased to be a partner in the firm with effect from July 5, 1960.
612/awarded to the defendant, Mehta, in the suit had number been deposited on behalf of the companyplainants father, Dinubhai.
291 of 1970 .
612.00 in the companyrt.
There may be lot of recov eries number due and may I request you to recover your fees out of the recoveries.
Ram Panjwani and H.S. Parihar, for respondent No.
The latter has proved from the records of the first appeal in the High Court that the companyts of Rs.
A. No.
There were two partners, namely, the companyplainants father and one M.C. Mehta.
My client paid to you Rs.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GOSWAMI, J. The appellant, an advocate of 25 years standing, was charged under section 420, Indian Penal Code.
D 8 dated October 27, 1966, to the appellant is revealing in this respect.
The companyplainant is the son of one Dinubhai, a senior partner of Dinubhai Co., with its head office in Bombay and a branch office in Indore.
612/ by a crossed cheque stating that this appeal is just number disposed of by the Honble High Court, Indore.
A civil suit was instituted by Dinubhai against Nai Duniya, Indore, a daily newspaper, impleading M.C. Mehta also as a companydefendant.
Thus, you had Rs.
612/ awarded to him.
L. Kohli, R.C. Kohli and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the appel lant.
612/ towards the companyts awarded.
He was acquitted by the trial companyrt holding the matter to be of civil nature.
He, however, admitted that after the companypromise the appellant had sent a cheque of Rs.
This happened on March 10, 1967.
