were said to constitute the break-up had been picked up merely because when added up, they totalled up to Rs. 5600. But the learned counsel was unable to point out any such other item. His contention, therefore, cannot be accepted. The individual items in exhibit Public Witness 30/11 have to be accepted as correct. None of these items is said to have been paid back or otherwise adjusted.

( 32 ) THE item of Rs. 5600 was noticed by the directors in their meeting dated January 28, 1960 when a resolution in respect thereof was passed as is apparent from the minute book. Notice of this meeting was duly served on the appellant, although she in her cross-examination has stated that she received the notice on January 31, 1960. She does not say that the agenda of the meeting did not accompany the notice, nor was any question asked from Anand Kumar or Sushil Kumar about the agenda. She was, therefore, aware of this amount having been debited to her account. She did not protest. The resolution cannot be said to have been manipulated, especially as the minute book was duly signed, by Mr. K. K. Jain, the appellant's learned counsel on December 1, 1960 in pursuance of the orders of G. D. Khosla,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document