Kumarayya, J.

[1] This is an application to quash Criminal proceedings for an offence under Section 409 IPC against Md. Abdul Sattar, managing partner of Shri Dhanalakshmi Rice and Oil Mill Contractors Company, Vijayawada. This company is a partnership concern. The partnership was created by an agreement between 16 persons in December 1954 for a period of two years for the purpose of working the said company at Vijayawada. The shares of all the partners are not equal. The accused has l/24th share therein. Like others he brought into the concern his own share of capital.

He being more experienced in the business was, by a special resolution dated 9-12-1954, appointed a managing partner. A remuneration of Rs. 100/- per month was fixed for him by the said resolution to which he too was a party. He was to look after the purchases and sales of paddy, the working of the mill and correct maintenance of accounts and day to day business of the firm a cash credit account was opened in the State Bank of India Vijayawada in the name of the partnership firm. Two of the partners including P.W. I were authorised to operate that account.

[2] The case against the accused is that the failed to enter in the cash book the full amount of the cheque of Rs. 11,000/- issued by P.W. 1 on 24-12-1955 and misappropriated Rs. 1,000/- out of it; and that he similarly on 2-1-1956 instead of entering the entire amount of Rs. 20.000/- for which the cheque was issued by P. W 1 credited only RS. 15,000/- and misappropriated the remaining Rs. 5,000/-. The proceedings were started on the police report and a charge was framed under Section 409 IPC, against the accused. He pleaded not guilty. Thereafter he has come to this Court with a request for quashing the proceedings in C.C. No. 868/1956 on the ground that this criminal proceeding against him is illegal, he being' a partner of the firm.

[3] Before I go into the merits I have to dispose of a preliminary objection. It is argued that an application for quashing the proceedings ought to be made at the earliest possible opportunity and that since the petitioner has not raised the point of jurisdiction of the Court below and has waited till two witnesses, after the charge, were examined, his petition ought to be dismissed in limine. I do not think that this petition can be dismissed on such a technical ground.

The delaj alone is immaterial if there Is a strong case for the exercise of extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Section 561-A Cr.PC Ordinarily this Court will be reluctant to interfere, before the completion of the trial, with the proceedings pending before the lower Court; but where the prosecution case itself, as stated in the charge sheet or on the basis of evidence adduced, clearly leads to the conclusion that there is no case against the accused and the further prolongation of the prosecution would amount to harassment, certainly it will be the duty of this Court to interfere by exercising its inherent powers.

[4] So, then, the next question is, whether the Criminal proceedings are ill-founded on the facts alleged. There is no doubt that the asset in connection with which the offence is alleged to have been committed are partnership assets evidently belonging to the partners as a whole and not the exclusive property of any of the partners; that the accused is a partner in the firm having interest both In the assets and the profits that may be ascertained and further that he is clothed with power to make purchases and sales and deal with the partnership property as a Managing- Partner.

He is charged with an offence under Section 409 IPC probably as an agent and not under Section 406 IPC which is a general section. The law of partnership- is but a branch of the law of agency and Section 18 of the Partnership Act provides that subject to the other provisions of the Act a partner is an agent of the firm. But this capacity does not derogate from his capacity as a partner; nor by virtue of his management