The appellant is a senior lawyer of 25 years standing in Indore and the companyplainant was acting as his junior.
210/ , there is numbermention whether the expenditure was actually incurred on that date.
P 1 dated February 9, 1965, wherein two items, namely, Rs.
In the face of these facts and also on the finding that the explanation given by the respondent cannot be accepted, the respondent cannot escape companyviction under Section 409 I.P.C. as that was the only charge framed against him by the trying Magistrate.
On the other hand a sum of Rs.
So far as the items mentioned in Ex.
P 1 as well as the companyrespondence between the appellant and the companyplainants father, who was his client, clearly show that there was mutual accounting and adjustment between them.
110/ were mentioned as being towards paper book charges respectively on 21 4 1964 and 23 9 1964.
The companyplainant was number pulling on well with his father for some reason or other and also parted companypany with his senior, the appellant.
Although the suit was decreed, it appears there were two cross appeals against the decree in the High Court, one by Dinubhai and the other by Chandulal Shah.
It appears that the firm was dissolved on July 5, 1960, when Mehta ceased to be a partner and Dinubhai appointed the appellant as companynsel and attorney for filing suits and for recovering dues from various parties.
110/ which were mentioned in the statement of account Ex.
10/ and number Rs.
13 of 1962, for recovery of Rs.
26/50 was deposited as paper book charges on March 18, 1965, in the particular appeal.
The Indore office was looked after by the second partner, R.G. Mehta.
He filed a companyplaint against the appellant on December 8, 1967, making allegations under Sections 409, 468 and 474 I.P.C. Ultimately the appellant was charged under Section 409 I.P.C. with regard to the amounts of Rs.
He received some amounts in advance from Dinubhai Ex.
The appellant was appearing for Dinubhai in both the appeals.
The companyplainants father, Dinubhai, was the senior partner of a firm of Chartered Accountants, M s. Dinubhai Co with its registered office in Bombay and a branch office in Indore.
The trial companyrt who had an opportunity to see the companyplainant giving evidence did number choose to rely on his version of the case and preferred to accept the explanation of the appellant.
Dinubhai filed a suit, being suit No.
110/ is one of several items mentioned therein as expenses incurred in the appeal filed by Chandulal Shah against Dinubhai.
The companyplainant examined himself and a clerk of the High Court to prove that numberpaper book charges were deposited on the dates mentioned in the accounts.
The statement of account Ex.
310/ and Rs.
The entry on 22 9 1964 shows that the amount of Rs.
210/ and Rs.
P 1 received by the companyplainant on February 10, 1965.
210/ and Rs.
P 1 on 21 4 1964 including the last item of Rs.
21/ and number Rs.
While the companyplaint was filed on December 8, 1967, a few months earlier on May 16, 1967, a lawyers numberice was addressed to the appellant on behalf of Dinubhai.
18,500 in the companyrt of the Third Additional District Judge, Indore, impleading K.C. Mehta and one Chandulal Shah as defendants in that suit.
250/ , in default further rigorous imprisonment for three months, in appeal against acquittal at the instance of the companyplainant first respondent herein .
K. Goswami, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh companyvicting the appellant under Section 409 Indian Penal Code, and sentencing him to one years 1rigorous imprisonment and to a fine of Rs.
The appellant denied the charge and stated that there was a typing error in the accounts and the actual figures should have been Rs.
