IMPORTANT POINT
Though the power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure should be sparingly invoked with circumspection, it should be exercised to see that the process of law is not abused or misused.

JUDGMENT

K. Venkataswami, J.-These appeals arise out of a complaint filed by the appellant which was subsequently registered as Criminal Case No. 262/89. Brief facts leading to the filing of these appeals are given below:-

2. The appellant who was a General Secretary of Hind Mazdoor Kisan Panchayat to which Gujarat Mazdoor Panchayat, a recognised trade union of a limited company, originally known as M/s. Sayaji Mills Ltd., now known as Sayaji Industries Ltd. is affiliated. According to the appellant/complainant, respondents 1 & 2 (hereinafter called the "contesting respondents") have committed offences under Sections 120-B and 409 IPC read with Section 77 of the Companies Act. The contesting respondents are father and son. One Vadilal Lalbhai Mehta was the father of the first respondent Bipinbhai Vadilal Mehta. One Suhasbhai Vadilal Mehta was the brother of the first respondent. They entered into a memorandum of understanding on 30.1.1982 for dividing their properties. As per the said memorandum of understanding, the first respondent s family will be given management and control of M/s. Sayaji Industries Ltd. and M/s. C.V. Mehta Pvt. Ltd. On the other hand, the management and control of other companies, namely, M/s. Industrial Machinery Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd., M/s. C. Doctor, & Co. Pvt. Ltd. shall remain with Suhash Bhai Mehta, brother of the first respondent. As per the terms of the memorandum, the liabilities of M/s. C.V. Mehta Pvt. Ltd. towards other concerns amounting to Rs. 39 lacs and odd was to be discharged by the first respondent and his family and only after the clearance of the said liability, the first respondent and his family could take over the management and control of the companies allotted to them. It was alleged by the appellant in the complaint that the contesting respondents had no funds with them to discharge the liability allotted to them and they could not also raise funds to be deposited with M/s. C.V. Mehta Pvt. Ltd. within the stipulated period, namely, February to November, 1982. Therefore, a modification to the memorandum of understanding was entered into between the same parties on 13.11.1982. As per the modified memorandum of understanding, it was agreed that the contesting respondents will deposit Rs. 20 lacs immediately with M/s. C.V. Mehta Pvt. Ltd. in order to acquire the shares of M/s. Sayaji Industries Ltd. and thereby gain management and control of M/s. Sayaji Industries Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Company ). In order to discharge the liability as per the modified memorandum of understanding, it is the specific case of the appellant that the contesting respondents entered into a conspiracy to commit criminal breach in relation to the funds of the company and thereby dishonestly siphoned the public funds to the detriment of the shareholders and the employees of the company. The appellant explaining the act of alleged conspiracy has stated in the complaint that the contesting respondents diverted the funds of the company in a clandestine manner by manipulating and tempering the records and accounts and caused the wrongful gain in so transferring the funds of the company by making advances to a supplier M/s. Santosh Starch Products Ltd. by three different cheques drawn on Punjab National bank. It was further alleged that the accused persons in furtherance of the conspiracy made it to appear that M/s. Santosh Starch Products advanced a loan of Rs. 20 lacs on 13.11.1982 by three cheques in favour of Bipin Mehta who in turn ploughed the amount in M/s. C.V. Mehta Pvt. Ltd. to discharge the liability undertaken by him as per the modified memo of understanding. In this process, the contesting respondents acquired the control and management of M/s. Sayaji Industries Ltd. Inasmuch as the funds of the company were utilised in the manner aforesaid, according to the appellant, the contesting respondents have violated Section 77 of the Companies Act. In addition, it was the case of the compl