AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
It is very difficult to gather from the order of the District Judge under what clause of the Sub-section 2 of Section 43 of the Provincial Insolvency Act the appellant was convicted. The words realizing his property and distributing the proceeds among his creditors occurring in the District Judge''s order seem to show that Sub-section (1), and not Sub-section (2), was in the mind of the District Judge.
As pointed out in Harihar Singh v. Moheshwar Prashad 16 CrI.L.J. 135 (Jenkins, C.J., and N.A. Chatterjea, J.), proceedings u/s 43 of the Insolvency Act are in the nature of criminal proceedings and hence there should be a definite charge, a finding and a conviction as a foundation for the sentence.
We set aside the District Judge''s order and direct the District Court to re-hear the case to pass fresh orders after framing a definite charge using the words of Section 43 in that charge, as far as possible and mentioning briefly the alleged facts on which the charge is based.