Posted On by &filed under High Court, Madras High Court.

Madras High Court
In Re: William Plythe Perrett vs Unknown on 3 February, 1927
Equivalent citations: 105 Ind Cas 448
Bench: Waller, M Nair


1. We think that 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 trust, the appellant disposes of it to various other persons. It is urged that the offences committed fell under Section 103 of the 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(6)(2) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, which is not clear, we do not think that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction, vide Segu Balliah v. Ramasamiah 42 Ind. Cas. 608 : 6 L.W. 283 : 18 Cr. L.J. 992.

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

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

109 queries in 0.186 seconds.