TRIKAMJI PARMANANDJI BHATIA Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The applicant Trikamji was convicted by the First Class Magistrate, Yeotmal, for an offence punishable under Section 69(c)(ii), Provincial Insolvency Act, read with Section 109, I. P. C., for having abetted the mortgage of a house owned by Javerchand, who was in insolvent circumstances, fraudulently with intent to diminish the sum to be divided amongst his creditors, and sentenced to four months' simple imprisonment. Javerchand the co-accused died during the pendency of the trial.

(2.) JAVERCHAND who carried on trade on a large scale at Yeotmal got involved in debts amounting to Rs. 1,60,000. His assets consisted of houses at Yeotmal and Dhamangaon and the stock of goods in his shop. On 26th March 1925 he executed a mortgage deed in favour of the applicant for a consideration of Rs. 50,000 alleged to have passed in Bombay and had this document registered at Amraoti on 18th April 1925. The creditors of. Javerchand filed an application on 28th April 1925 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, First Class, Yeotmal, who, on 19th December 1925 adjudicated Javerchand insolvent, and on 28th February 1928 annulled the mortgage deed of 26th March 1925 as fictitious and fraudulent. That order was confirmed in appeal and maintained by this Court also. Thereon the Subordinate Judge, First Class, Yeotmal, at the instance of one of the creditors laid a complaint in the Court of the Magistrate, First Class, Yeotmal, in accordance with Section 70, Sub-section 5, Provincial Insolvency Act, for inquiring into the offence alleged to have been committed by Javerchand and Trikamji under Section 69(c)(i), Provincial Insolvency Act.

(3.) THE applicant's next contention that the mortgage having been executed at Bombay and registered at Amraoti, the Magistrate at Yeotmal lacked jurisdiction to try his offence under Section 69(c)(i) is devoid of cogency and must be negatived.