Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

In Re: William PlyThe Perrett

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Feb 03, 1927
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/821176

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860), Section 406 - Presidency Towns Insolvency Act (III of 1909), Section 103--Criminal breach of trust by insolvent of property entrusted--Prosecution under Penal Code, sustainability of. -

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: William PlyThe Perrett

Legal References

Cases Referred
Segu Balliah v. Ramasamiah
Reported In
105Ind.Cas.448

Excerpt

penal code (act xlv of 1860), section 406 - presidency towns insolvency act (iii of 1909), section 103--criminal breach of trust by insolvent of property entrusted--prosecution under penal code, sustainability of. - 1. we think that the conviction is right. the evidence is clear that the furniture was entrusted to the appellant by the official assignee for the purpose of continuing his business and that, in breach of trust, the appellant disposes of it to various other persons. it is urged that the offences committed fell under section 103 of the presidency towns insolvency act and that the jurisdiction of the magistrate was thereby excluded. assuming that the facts proved do amount to an offence under section 103(6)(2) of the presidency towns insolvency act, which is not clear, we do not think that the magistrate had no jurisdiction, vide segu balliah v. ramasamiah 42 ind. cas. 608 : 6 l.w. 283 : 18 cri. l.j. 992.2. the sentence is not excessive. the appeal is dismissed.

Full Judgment

1. We think that the conviction is right. The evidence is clear that the furniture was entrusted to the appellant by the Official Assignee for the purpose of continuing his business and that, in breach of trust, the appellant disposes of it to various other persons. It is urged that the offences committed fell under Section 103 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act and that the jurisdiction of the Magistrate was thereby excluded. Assuming that the facts proved do amount to an offence under Section 103(6)(2) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, which is not clear, we do not think that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction, vide Segu Balliah v. Ramasamiah 42 Ind. Cas. 608 : 6 L.W. 283 : 18 Cri. L.J. 992.

2. The sentence is not excessive. The appeal is dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial