Ra111gopal Indian Penal Code, as against the second accused. second accused. Ruia Ganpatrai & Another The facts leading upto, this appeal, in bare outline, v. are as follows : On July 8, 1947, Raja Dhanraj Girji The State of Narsingh Girji, Chairman of the Dhanraj Mills Bonibay Limited, who will be referred to in the course of this Sinha J. judgment as the complainant, lodged a first informaticin report before the Inspector of Police, General Branch, C.I.D., Bom~ay,. in writing, to the effect that the Dhanraj Mills were formerly his private property which he converted into a limited concern in 1935. He is the life-Chairman of the Board of Directors of the concern. Till 1937, he was the Managing Agent, but; in that year, he transferred the managing agency to ~amgopal Ganpatrai, the first appellant who converted the managing agency into a private limited concern consisting of himself and members of his family. In 1943, the first appellant floated two private limited concerns under the name and style of (1) Ramgopal Ganpatrai and Sons as the Managing Agents and (2) Ramrikhdas Balkisan and Sons Limited, as the selling agents. Thus, the first appellant came to have control of the managing agency and the selling agency. as also of the Mills, all inter-connected. The complainant had six annas share in the managing agency and the reni.aining interest therein was owned by the first appellant and his family. Differences arose between the complainant and the first appellant in respect of the affairs of the Mills. The complainant's suspicions were aroused with respect to the accounts of the Mills, and as a result of his private enquiries, he claims to have discovered that "there were large defalcations committed in the management of this Mill". It appeared to him that during September to December, 1945, the first appellant as the Managing Agent, in the c9urse of his large purchasE!s of Cotton bales for consumption in the Mills, had "dovetailed in these transactions about 20 bogus entries of socalled purchases of 3, 719 cotton bales from fictitious merchants in the Bombay market. The cost of these purchases involved an approximate sum of Rs. 8,27,000." Against the customary practice of the
