March 27. 1965 which was for the purchase of 200 tons of groundnut extraction and with which we are now concerned. The Cash Credit Agreement, the Packing Credit Agreement and the letter requesting the advance of Rs. 60,0001- were all signed on the same date. The advance, as requested, was also made on the 27th March 1965. Goods were purchased but could not be shipped within a month from the date of the advance because, as stated in the letter of the appellant •fated the 27th April, due to change in tJ1e schedule of departure of the ships it was not possible to export the goods on the 24th or 25th March as originally planned as such he undertook to ship the goods a week thereafter. On the same day, the appellant further sent a declaration that the firm had purchased 300 tons from the advance made to it and is holding the stock. On the 6th May the Bank requested the firm to forward the shipping documents in respect of the seven agreements of which one related to the agreement of 27th March. When the shipping documents were not sent to it in confirmity with the several documents the bank made certain enquiries from its branch in Veraval, a port in Kathiawar and received certain information as to the dates on which the various quantities were exported and the ships in which they were sent. As the shipping documents were not sent to the second respondent as required under the agreements entered into with it, it again called on the firm on the 24th May to hand over the documents to it in respect of the groundnut exported. When this resquest was not complied with, it filed a complaint against the appellant who alone was the active partner of the firm, in the court of the Presidency Magistrate on the 26th May alleging against him misappropriafion of moneys and goods contrary to the agreement. In support of this complaint the manager of the bank gave evidence and at the stage of framing the charge the Magistrate heard the lawyers for both sides. He framed only one charge against the accused for misappropriation of the moneys under s. 406 I.P.C. advanced by the Bank in respect of which the Magistrate ultimately convicted him on 31st August 1966 and sentenced him to 18 months' R.I. Against this conviction the appellant appealed to the High Court and when the case came up for hearing and had been argued for a considerable length, the advocate for the complainant. the second respondent, appears to have made an oral application for amending the charge framed by the Magistate as per the draft handed over to the learned Judge which was to be added as an alternative charge to the charge already framed. It was contended that the Magistrate had framed a charge merely in respect of the entrustment of the moneys that were advanced by the Bank to the appellant but even so the evidence had been led on behalf of the complainant at the trial to show that apart from the money with which the app~lant was said to have been
