Skip to content


William PlyThe Petrett Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1927Mad1018
AppellantWilliam PlyThe Petrett
RespondentEmperor
Cases ReferredSegu Baliah v. Ramaswamiah
Excerpt:
- 1. we think the conviction is right. the evidence is clear that the furniture was entrusted to the appellant by the official assignee for the purpose of continuing his business and that, in breach of the trust, the appellant disposed of it to various persons. it is urged that the offences committed fell under section 103, presidency towns insolvency act, and that the jurisdiction of the magistrate was thereby excluded. assuming that the facts proved do amount to an offence under section 103, (b) (2), presidency towns insolvency act, which is not clear, we do not think that the magistrate had no jurisdiction: vide segu baliah v. ramaswamiah [1917] 6 m. l. w. 283 42 i. c. 608.2. the sentence is not excessive. the appeal is dismissed.
Judgment:

1. We think the conviction is right. The evidence is clear that the furniture was entrusted to the appellant by the Official Assignee for the purpose of continuing his business and that, in breach of the trust, the appellant disposed of it to various persons. It is urged that the offences committed fell under Section 103, Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, and that the jurisdiction of the Magistrate was thereby excluded. Assuming that the facts proved do amount to an offence under Section 103, (b) (2), Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, which is not clear, we do not think that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction: vide Segu Baliah v. Ramaswamiah [1917] 6 M. L. W. 283 42 I. C. 608.

2. The sentence is not excessive. The appeal is dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //