HARI PRASAD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Hari Prasad, Ram Saran and Harianand appeal against their conviction under Sections 406, 477 and 477A, Penal Code, by the Additional Sessions Judge Banaras. The trial was with the help of a jury.

(2.) The prosecution case, in brief, is that these appellants and one Moti Lal, the complainant, entered into a partnership on 15-7-1948. The partnership firm was to be known as "Moghalsarai Cloth Trading Company". Moti Lal was to contribute Rs. 24,000/- towards the capital and each of the three appellants was to contribute Rs. 8,000/-. Each of the appellants was to share in the profit and loss equally, and the share of Moti Lal in the profit and loss of the business was to be 7/16. The three appellants were to manage the business of the firm. The account-books were to be kept by them or any of them. It was further provided in the deed of partnership that an account would be taken of all the capital assets and liabilities and of the profits and losses of the partnership annually, that the appellants would explain the accounts to Moti Lal and that then it would be signed by all the partners. It further provided that such accounts when signed would be binding on each of the appellants. Moti Lai was not to take active part in the management of the firm.

(3.) It was in October, 1948, that he suspected that there was something wrong with the management. He asked Nem Chand, his brother-in-law and who happened to be the person to whom any disputes in connection with the partnership were to be referred for decision under para. 17 of the agreement, to check up the accounts. Nem Chand demanded the account books from Ram Saran Bam, one of the appellants who used to write up the accounts, and got the pakka-rokar, pakkakhata and some invoices after a few demands. He did not get kachha-rokar and nam-jakars which are alleged to have been maintained in this firm, though their maintenance is denied by the accused appellants. He suspected the correctness of various entries in the books of account and informed Moti Lal about it. A few days later he learnt about the accused's removing the stock of the firm; he went to the firm and found a truck laden with goods standing in front of the shop. To him, this confirmed the information; he complained to a police constable and later to the Sub-Inspector of police about the accused's removing the property of the firm but, when required by the Sub-Inspector to lodge a report in writing, did not make any report in writing.