1. The facts connected with this appeal are as follows. One Ahsanullah applied to be declared an insolvent. His petition was granted and the Receiver took possession of certain property as belonging to the insolvent, including the two watches, a bed and some cooking utensils which were not included in the list of his property given by the insolvent, Proceedings were taken on the report of the Receiver and the insolvent was sentenced to one month's simple imprisonment. He now appeals, contending in the first instance that the order was bad because no charge had been framed. He also appeals upon the merits. As to the first point we do not think that the order is absolutely illegal. The insolvent appears to have had an opportunity of meeting the charge against him, and he must have known what the charge was. At the same time we think, as has already been pointed out in this Court, that it is advisable for a Judge in an insolvency matter, when he intends to take proceedings which may result in an order being made under Section 43 of the Insolvency Act, that the proceedings should be carried on in analogy with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and that something in the nature of a charge should be drawn up and a day of time fixed for the hearing of the evidence on that charge, the insolvent having an opportunity to meet the charge. We think that as a general rule it is very undesirable that anything like a summary order should be passed. Having stated so much, we must also remark that we are very far from saying in the present case that it was unnecessary that proceedings should have been taken. On the merits we see no sufficient reason to disagree with the finding of the Court below that the insolvent concealed some of the property which belonged to him from the Receiver and omitted to include it in the list of his property. The property was, however, of small value and one of the watches has been found by the Court to have belonged to the son. Under all the circumstances we think that the punishment which the insolvent has already suffered is sufficient and we modify the order of the Court below accordingly. The meaning of our order is that the appellant will not be obliged to go back to jail. His bail-bonds are cancelled.