At the commencement of the proceedings on Wednesday, the Crown Advocate, Mfr. A. G. Mossop, on behalf of the Crown, continued his eross-examination of the accused questioning him at great length as fo his various transactions with Verma. Counsel for the defence conducted his re-examination and after the recess, the Crown Advocate addressed the Court, After reading the charges and the law applying to conversion, counsel said that the jury must be satisfied that the monies covered by the cheques were drawn by accused in favour fof Verma. Secondly, the jury must be satisfied that the accused was entrusted with these monies. Thirdly, was the monty in accused's hands fe custody or for some pare use, and fourth Accused fraudulently converted these monies to the use of Verma, The Crown Advocate quoted. the Jaw on partnership and submitted that, there was abundant. evidences. to show that accused was not a partner but an employee under the Control of Watanmal Boolchand and also to a certain extent subject to the control of the Hongkong manager, The crux of the matter was perhaps whether accused was honest or foolish. Were his actions those of an honest man? Counsel thought not, Counsel con eluded by submitting that there was ample evidence on which to find the accused guilty. It might be an unpleasant duty but they, the jury, must remember their oath, The Real Wrongdoer Counsel for the defence said that Verma was the real wrongdoer in this case, He, however, was not here, neither was Lalchand, the proprietor of the complainant company, and the latter was in India. Counsel then dealt at length with the question as to whether accused was a partner or not in the Dusiness, and with the law gard thereto. He pointed out that Parsram (the Hongkong manager) had sworn two wBdavite in Hong: kong, subscribed his name and described himself as "partner." Moreover, these affdlavits had been drawn up by a lawyer, Counsel contended that accused's actions were not those of a man who in tended to defraud his employers. Accused had told the Court that Verma had let him down and that he (Bedi) thought everything would eventually work out satisfactorily. But Verma had gone away. If he had been present in Court his evidence would have been very valuable, There was, continued counsel, a very great difference between "conversion" and frauduent conversion" and counsel proceeded to illustrate this difference. by quotations from law reports. To convict on "fraudulent conver. sion" it must be proved that the permanently to deprive Watar Boolehand of the money which he had lent to Verma, Counsel submitted that. there was no such intention, After sentence had been passed, no notice of appeal was given but it is understood that an appeal may be filed within the time allowed by the law in criminal cases, His Lordship thanked the jury and exempted them for three years.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.