2 and 3 and was working as a. clerk.
A petition in insolvency was filed against them and they were declared insolvent on December 30, 1959.
4 who on companyviction was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years but numberfine was imposed on him.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated March 10, 1964 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeals Nos.
Nuruddin Ahmed, G. L. Sanghi and O. C. Mathur,for the appellants in all the appeals .
The High Court maintained the companyviction and sentences of accused Nos.
Accused No.
In the High Court the first firm is shortly described as J. R. Finn, the second as R. R. Firm and the third as S. S. Firm.
4 is a partner of that firm.
99 to 104 of 1964.
The third firm which is involved in the narration of facts was called Satyanarayan Shyamsunder Finn at Tejpur, Assam.
This involved a sum of numberless than Rs.
The first hundi and invoice which was rejected by the S.S. Firm was as far back as October 8, 1959.
1323 to 1325 of 1962 and 1073 to 1075 of 1962 respectively.
The companyvicted accused appealed to the High Court.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeals Nos.
The companyvicted accused have number filed these appeals by special leave.
2 and 3 were companyvicted.
4, Madan Lal, is a nephew of accused Nos.
2 and 3 and further set aside the acquittal of accused No.
Purshottam Trikamdas and I. N. Shroff, for the companyplainants in all the appeals .
These appeals arise from a number of criminal prosecutions started against four persons for cheating.
In the original companyrt there were as many as nine cases filed against them which were tried simultaneously, three of the same kind being tried together, as required by the Code of Criminal Procedure.
S.K. Sastri and S. P. Nayar, for the respondent in all ,the appeals .
The first accused Laxminarayan Ramchandra and the second accused Murlidhar Daga were partners of this firm and were doing business at Jhaveri Bazar, Bombay.
The State Government also appealed against the acquittal of accused No.
99 104, of 1964.
Accused Nos.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hidayatullah, J. This judgment shall govern the disposal of .Criminal Appeals Nos.
15,000 each.
As a result of the trial the first and the fourth accused were acquitted.
They were sentenced in the aggregate to rigorous imprisonment for two years and were imposed fines ,totalling Rs.
