P 1 received by the companyplainant on February 10, 1965.
P.I as well as the companyrespondence between the appellant and the companyplainants father, who was client, dearly show that there was mutual accounting and adjustment between them.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 22 10 1971 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court Indore Bench in Crl.
12,500/ in the companyrt of the Third Additional District Judge, Indore, impleading M.C. Mehta and one Chandulal Shah as defendants in that suit.
210/ and Rs.
While the companyplaint was filed on December 8, 1967, a few months earlier on May 16, 1967, a lawyers numberice was ad dressed to the appellant on behalf of Dinubhai.
He received some amounts in advance from Dinubhai and submitted a statement of account of Shri Dinubhai Ex.
10/ and number Rs.
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 ac companynts.
The companyplainant was number pulling on well with his father for some reason or other and also parted companypany with his senior, the appellant.
210/ and Rs.
The entry on 22 9 1964 shows that the amount of Rs.
The statement of account Ex.
The appellant denied the charge and stated that there was a typing error in the accounts and the actual figures should have been Rs.
It further held that it was clear that on the dates mentioned in the accounts numberamounts were deposited as paper book charges in the High Court.
The appellant was appearing for Dinubhai in both the appeals.
So far as the items mentioned in Ex.
110/ is one of several items mentioned therein as expenses incurred in the appeal flied by Chandu lal Shah against Dinubhai.
P 1 on 21 4 1964 including the last item of Rs.
Ultimately the appellant was charged under section 409 IPC with regard to the amounts of Rs.
P 1 dated February 9, 1965, wherein two items, namely, Rs.
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 Chandu lal Shah.
On the other hand a sum of Rs.
13 of 1962, for recovery of Rs.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
210/ , there is numbermention whether the expenditure was actually incurred on that date.
24 of 1972.
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.
210/ and 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 company viction under section 409 I.P.C. as that was the only charge framed against him by the trying Magistrate.
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.
He filed a companyplaint against the appellant on December 8, 1967, making allegations under sections 409, 468 and 474 IPC.
292/70 .
A. No.
211/ and number Rs.
26.50 was deposited as paper book charges on March 18, 1965, in the particular appeal.
The companyplainants father, Dinubhai, was the senior partner of a firm of Chartered Accountant, M s. Dinubhai Co., with its registered office in Bombay and a branch office in Indore.
K. Khan and S.K. Dhingra, for respondent No.
110/ which were mentioned in the statement of account Ex.
The High Court company cluded as follows Consequently it cannot be doubted that the respondent, who as an agent of the company plainants father was entrusted with the amounts, showed false expenses and thereby kept the amounts with himself.
The appellant is a senior lawyer of 25 years standing in Indore and the companyplainant was acting as his junior.
250/ , in default further rigorous imprisonment for three months, in appeal against acquittal at the instance of the companyplainant first respondent herein .
Ram Panjwani and H.S. Parihar, for respondent No.
Dinub hai filed a suit, being suit No.
The Indore office was looked after by the second partner, C. Mehta.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 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 rigorous imprisonment and to a fine of Rs.
L. Kohli, R.C. Kohli and A.G. Ratnaparkhi, for the appel lant.
110/ were mentioned as being towards paper book charges respectively on 21 4 1964 and 22 9 1964.
