JUDGMENT : Blair, J. This is an appeal from an order declaring the respondent an insolvent. The appellant is the only creditor of the respondent. It appears that the respondent was employed in the firm of the appellant and was charged with having embezzled money belonging to the appellant, It is in respect of the amount so embezzled that the appellant obtained the decree in execution of which he caused the respondent to be arrested. It is contended before us that the embezzlement was an act of bad faith within the meaning of clause (d) of section 351 of the Civil Procedure Code, and that consequently the respondent is not entitled to be declared an insolvent. 2. This contention is borne out by the ruling of the Full Bench in Gopal Das v. Behari Lal, [1893] I.L.R., 17 All., 218, F.B.. In that case it was held that the words, “any other act of bad faith mentioned in clause (d) mean any act of bad faith, not before mentioned in section 351, which bears directly upon the conduct of the debtor in the matters leading up to the application for insolvency, and would not exclude any act of bad faith by which he had incurred a then subsisting liability to any of his creditors.” As the liability in respect of which the appellant got his decree against the respondent was a liability which arose out of an act of bad faith, the respondent's case comes within clause (d) of section 351, and he should not have been declared an insolvent. We accordingly allow the appeal, and, setting aside the order of the court below, dismiss the respondent's application for a declaration of insolvency with costs in both Courts.