Skip to content


Jethabhi Nanjibhai Vs. Bipinchandra Parshotam and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtGujarat High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Appln. No. 179 of 1966
Judge
Reported inAIR1968Guj183; (1967)8GLR640
ActsIndian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 406
AppellantJethabhi Nanjibhai
RespondentBipinchandra Parshotam and anr.
Appellant Advocate H.K. Thkore, Adv.; G.T. Nanavati, Asst. Govt. Pleader
Respondent Advocate N.H. Bhatt, Adv.
Excerpt:
- order1. this is an application under section 561-a of the application contains a prayer that the charge framed under against the applicant should be quashed. the charge was framed under section 406 of the india penal code. even on the basis of the complaint, the applicant is the managing partner of the firm of the firm. the allegation in the complaint is in respect of a sum of rs. 10,000/- which was realised during the business, of the firm. a charge of misappropriation cannot lie in respect of one firm of money received by a managing partner of partnership business, as what amount is due to various persons and what is due from them can be settled by taking accounts are taken, there cannot be a criminal complaint of misappropriation of a sum admittedly received during the partnership.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. This is an application under section 561-A of the application contains a prayer that the charge framed under against the applicant should be quashed. The charge was framed under section 406 of the India Penal Code. Even on the basis of the complaint, the applicant is the managing partner of the firm of the firm. The allegation in the complaint is in respect of a sum of Rs. 10,000/- which was realised during the business, of the firm. A charge of misappropriation cannot lie in respect of one firm of money received by a managing partner of partnership business, as what amount is due to various persons and what is due from them can be settled by taking accounts are taken, there cannot be a criminal complaint of misappropriation of a sum admittedly received during the partnership unless there is evidence to show that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- was specially entrusted to the applicant. There is no such allegation in the complaint that the sum of Rs. 10,000/- was specially entrusted. The charge framed is therefore, quashed and the proceedings are terminated.

2. Petition allowed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //