RAMASAMY CHETTI Vs. BANK OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) As pointed out in Harihar Singh v. Moheshwar Prashad 27 Ind. Cas. 198 : 16 Cr.L.J. 135 : 18 C.W.N. 692 (Jenkins, C.J., and N.A. Chatterjea, J.), proceedings under Section 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.

(3.) 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.