VARIKANTI ANKANNA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision directed against the order of the Sessions Judge, Anantapur, who confirmed the conviction made and the sentence awarded by the District Magistrate, Gooty. The petitioner before me was adjudged an insolvent on his own application on 5th August 1953. by the District Judge, Anantapur. It is alleged that in his insolvency petition, he did not mention that he had an interest in a piece of land situated in Lingareddypalli, comprised in Survey No. 42. It would appear that he also held a permanent lease of this land under a registered lease-deed dated 21st Feb. . 1950. The further facts that are alleged against the petitioner are that subsequent to the filing of the insolvency petition before the District Judge and before he was adjudged an insolvent, he transferred his right in 50 cents of this land in favour of a third party who has been examined as P. W. 2 in the criminal case against him, by means of a document dated 28th April 1953, and his right in the remaining portion of the land, he appears to have transferred in favour of his concubine on 1st of July 1953/

(2.) THE Insolvency Act makes it obligatory upon the insolvent to give a true and correct statement of his assets and deliver the same to the Receiver. The insolvent is also forbidden from transferring any of his property after he had filed the insolvency petition. If he contravenes any of these conditions then he is liable to punishment under Section 69 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. The facts, no doubt, are proved that there was a transfer as alleged by the prosecution in favour of P. W. 2 and P. W. 3 but the petitioner contended that the conveying did not amount to any offence under the Act, because what the Act forbade was a transfer of his property and the right that he possessed was only a lease-hold right, which could not be regarded as 'property' within the meaning of Section 2 (d) of the Act. The District Magistrate finding the accused guilty under Sections 69 (a) and 69 (c)' (2), sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months, under each charge, the sentences to run concurrently. This was upheld by the Sessions Judge.

(3.) THE point that is now sought to be made out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that this lease that he obtained from the landlord in 1952 was a subordinate interest and could not be regarded as property belonging to the petitioner under the Act. Section 69 of the Act reads as under: If a debtor where before or after the making of an order of adjudication.