Shortly stated, it is to the effect that the charge framed against him is bad in law and extremely vague; that the vagueness of the charge had "considerably handicapped" his defence, that the prosecution had not been fair in that it had not exa mined the first informant, M. N. Raiji, that if he had been examined 'by the prosecution, the appellant would have shown from the records in his possession 64 492 that the Co operative Bank had not suffered any loss and that the Bank in the hands of the Liquidator had more than sufficient funds to pay the dues of the former; that the prosecution bad not been launched with the sanction of the Company Judge who was in seisin of the liquidation proceedings in respect of the Exchange Bank and that therefore the provisions of sections 179 and 237 of the Indian Companies Act had not been complied with; that the securities in question had not been entrusted to the appellant but to the Exchange Bank, ' if at all there was any entrustment, and that as a matter of fact and law, the Ex change Bank had not been entrusted with the securities, that the Exchange Bank "Court legally deal with the securities in any manner it liked", as provided in the documents, Exs.