EMPEROR Vs. KHIMCHAND AMEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, Khimchand A. Mehta, has been convicted on three charges under Section 103 of the Presidency-towns Insolvency Act, and has been sentenced to fifteen months rigorous imprisonment on each of the charges, the sentences to run concurrently. He has appealed against his convictions and sentences.

(2.) The first point raised by Mr. Carden Noad is that his client has been improperly tried, because the charges framed against him are really two on each count, and amount to at least five, if not six, charges of separate offences.

(3.) The prosecution story is as follows : Appellant was doing business in Bombay since before 1918, principally as an auctioneer, though he had several other branches which were sub- departments of it. He is said to have speculated and to have lost large sums, and since 1926, in any case, his business was carried on, more or less, on credit. Things went on in this fashion until February, 1929, when, on the application of a creditor to the Insolvency Court, his books were seized and he was ultimately adjudicated an insolvent. His liabilities were Rs. 3,41,274, Rs. 3,00,000 being unsecured, and the amount of his assets ultimately recovered came to about Rs. 20,000. After the insolvency, there was a proceeding by notice of motion before the Commissioner in Insolvency, Mr. Justice B.J. Wadia, who held that certain matters falling within the purview of Section 103 of the Presidency-towns Insolvency Act needed investigation, and he accordingly directed that a complaint should be lodged against the accused. This was done in the Court of the Presidency Magistrate, Third Court, Mr. Khandalavala, and the trial appears to have lasted for about nine months, ending in the manner I have already stated. The provisions of Section 103 of the Presidency-towns Insolvency Act are, that when any person who has been adjudged insolvent (a) has fraudulently, with the intent to conceal the state of his affairs or to defeat the objects of the Act, done certain things, which fall under three heads; or (b) has fraudulently, with intent to diminish the sum to be divided amongst his creditors, or of giving an undue preference to any of the said creditors, done certain other things, he shall on conviction be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years.