The prosecution case was briefly this.There is a firm Hiremani and Jaglur and Co., carrying on business sin oil and flour at Hubli in the district of Dharwar.That firm is the proprietor of the Sangameshwar Oil and Flour Mills.On 26-5-1956, K. Umakant wrote a letter to the Hubli firm informing the later that he was awaiting the draft for Rupees 8000/- "as per wire and call", but the same was not received till 4 p.m. that day.The Hubli firm referred in that letter to a telegram informing K. Umakant that a draft on the Canara Industrial and Banking Syndicate Ltd., No. 075509, dated 21-5-1956, had already been despatched on 21st May, 1956 and the balance of Rs. 5,000/- was sent on 27th May. The Hubli firm further stated that they were surprised to learn that the draft for Rs. 8,000/- was not received by K. Umakant.They asserted that it was posted on 21-5-1956 with an enclosing letter.The letter then proceeded to state:"Probably as it is an ordinary post might be received by you in your office by anyone in your office.The draft was then presented in the bank together with a paying-in-slip and the amount of the draft was duly credited in the account.Thereafter the person who opened the account with the bank and deposited the draft for Rs. 8,000 made enquiries from time to time about the cashing of the draft.JUDGMENT Shah, J.The accused Abu Ismail was tried in Sessions Case No. 21 of 1957 for offences under Section 411, Section 467, and Section 471 read with Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code.The accused was tried before the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, with a common jury.The jury brought in a majority verdict of 8 to 1 against the accused for the there offences charged against him.All the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.The accused has appealed to this Court.The letter was addressed to K. Umakant.It appears that this draft with the enclosing letter did not reach K. Umakant.A partner of the Hubli firm then came to Bombay.It appears that on 25-5-1956 an application for opening an account in the name of Kamalakant Umakant Joshi residing at Patel Mansions, Chowpaty, Bombay 7, was submitted to the Manager of the New Citizen Bank of India, Ltd., Queen's Road Branch, Bombay.In the application the introductory reference was given by one Seth C. Das and the occupation of the applicant was shown as "Commission Agent" and address as "Opposite to Grant Road Station".The applicant deposited a sum of Rs. 500/ in cash for opening the account.In the specimen signature card which accompanied the application it was stated that the applicant will sign on cheques as "K. Umakant." In the afternoon of the same day, the draft for Rs. 8,000/- which was sent by the Hubli firm addressed to K. Umakant of Bombay was presented by the applicant who had opened the account with the New Citizen Bank of India, Ltd. It appears that one Gambre, who was the ledger-keeper in the bank asked the person who presented the draft to endorse the same in his presence even though the draft bore already an endorsement by K. Umakant.On 28th May 1956, he approached Gambre and was told that the draft had been cashed and credit was given to him.Thereupon a cheque for Rupees 7,900/- was drawn in favour of self' and the amount was withdrawn by the person who had deposited that draft.It appears that three more cheques respectively for Rs. 5000/- Rs. 3,000/- and Rs. 2,000/- were deposited but those cheques were dishonoured.On 30th May 1956, the net balance which remained with the bank in the account opened on 25th May 1956, was Rs. 171/12/. It is the case for the prosecution that the accused had received the draft for Rs. 8,000/- knowing the same to be stolen property and had thereafter endorsed the same in favour of the New Citizen Bank of India, Ltd., and had withdrawn the amount of Rs. 7,900/- which as the proceeds of the draft.Pursuant to the complaint made on 4th June 1956, investigation was started by the police and ultimately the accused was arrested and he was charged wit the offence under Section 379, or,in the alternative under Section 411 of the Penal Code and also for the offences under Section 467, of the Penal Code.It appears that the jury accepted the prosecution case that it was the accused who had presented the draft ad the bank and had made an endorsement on the reverse of the draft in the presence of Gambre and that the accused was not the person who was the addressee of the letter which was sent by the Hubli firm with which the draft was enclosed.The learned Judge put the respective versions of the Honorary Presidency Magistrate and of Gambre and told the jury that it was for them to decide whether the evidence of Gambre should be accepted in preference to the evidence of the Honorary Presidency Magistrate.

Cited provisions: Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code