DWARKADAS HARIDAS Vs. AMBA LAL GANPATRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Shantilal Lajjashankar, the Secretary of a Limited Company carrying on business at Ahmedabad in the Bombay Presidency presented a petition of complaint in, I think, February or March last before the Deputy Inspector-General of Police of the Poona Criminal Investigation Department of the Bombay Presidency against Dwarkadas Haridas of Calcutta. Ambalal Ganpatram an Inspector of Police of the C.I.D., Poona, was directed by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, C.I.D., Poona to get the case registered at Ahmedabad and to investigate into the matter, Ambalal Ganpatram had the complaint recorded in the Police Station of Kalupur in Ahmedabad city and took up the investigation. The complaint was filed by the complainant as representative of the limited company and on its behalf. The complaint alleged that Dwarkadas had been acting since 1920 as commission agent of the limited company, and that as such, he was entrusted with yarn and cloth bales belonging to the company for sale at Calcutta that he was responsible for the value of the goods sent and that it was his duty to remit the money representing the value of the goods sold and to retain the unsold balance of the goods. It further alleged that Dwarkadas in July, 1922 professed with the sanction of the mill's agent (who was one Lalbhai Tricurolal) to have made a contract for the sale of 601 bales at certain rates which he intimated to the company by a letter of the 24 July, 1922 and that in pursuance of the intimation the Company despatched 595 bales between the August, 1922 and the 23 November, 1922 and that Dwarkadas submitted stock sheets from time to time acknowledging receipt of the 595 bales in pursuance of the contract.

(2.) It further alleges that the accused was responsible for Rs. 2,97,292-15-6 the value of the bales but that with the intention of causing wrongful loss to the company and wrongful gain, to himself, the accused represented to the company that the person who had contracted to purchase the bales was unwilling to take delivery and that thereupon it was agreed that the contract rates were to be charged for 300 bales and for the balance the revised rates, but that the accused refused to give the name of the contracting party, that the accused later represented that the contracting party refused to take delivery, and that he must sell by public-auction or private contract and that he subsequently reported having effected private sales of 313 bales and public-auction of 5 bales, that the accused according to his accounts had received Rs. 2,53.314-2-0 for the 595 bales and had remitted Rs. 1,86,296-4-9 only, that on the 13 February, 1923 the accused sent what purported to be a copy of the original contract signed by one Ramachandra Baijnath. The complaint further alleged that in July, 1922 there was no such firm in Calcutta, and that it was a fictitious name, and that the accused had put forward a bogus contracting party and thereby induced the company to revise and reduce its rates. The complaint then charges dishonest and fraudulent misappropriation by the accused of a sum of Rs. 67,017-13-3 admitted by the accused in his accounts to have been received, and charges him with an offence under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and with such other offences as might be disclosed in the evidence and asks for seizure of the books of account relating to the sales and of other books and documents bearing on the case, for the arrest of the accused in respect of an offence under Section 409, I.P.C., and that a police officer may be deputed to Calcutta for the purpose.

(3.) Ambalal Ganpatram states that in the course of the investigation he examined the complainant, Lalbhai Tricumlal and other witnesses at Ahmedabad and the correspondence and accounts. On the 1 March, he obtained a search warrant from a 1 Class Magistrate at Ahmedabad for the books, documents etc, and came to Calcutta and in execution thereof took charge of the books etc., from the house and office of Dwarakadas after making a search list and arrested Dwarkadas under the provisions of Section 54, Cr. P. Code, on the 5 March and produced him on the 6 before the Chief Presidency Magistrate asking that he might be forwarded under proper escort to the 1 Class Magistrate, Ahmedabad.