AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
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 u/s 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 u/s 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 Cri. L.J. 992.
The sentence is not excessive. The appeal is dismissed.