MUHAMMAD SHAFI Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The four applicants before me have been convicted of an offence under Section 186, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to various sums of fine. The case for the prosecution is that Mohammad Shafi and his son Qamruddin owned a provision shop in a village in the district of Azamgarh. The District Board used to levy some sort of tax. The tax remained unpaid and an amin went with a warrant of attachment. In pursuance of this warrant of attachment he attached certain moveables. The prosecution case is that he was prevented in removing the attached articles. The defence case is that the accused insisted that the articles should be weighed and a proper inventory given to them. I have looked at the inventory on the record and it appears that the weight of the attached articles was given by approximation only. The question thus arises whether the accused were justified in insisting on the attached articles being weighed or whether the amin was justified in noting the approximate weight of the articles only. Under Section 138, District Boards Act, it is provided in Sub-clause 3: The distress shall not be excessive, that is to say, the property distrained shall be as nearly as possible equal in value to the amount recoverable under the warrant

(2.) And in Sub-clouse (4) of the aforesaid section, it is said: The officer shall on seizing the property forth, with make an inventory thereof, and shall before removing the same give to the person in possession thereof at the time of seizure a copy of the inventory signed by him....

(3.) If the distress has not to be excessive and if an inventory has got to be given, I doubt very much if the law is satisfied by entering the weight only by approximation. The learned Magistrate says: ....the work of the amins or any officer appointed to execute a warrant of attachment would become impracticable if they were supposed to make actual weighments of the moveable specially when they go out to attach grain, etc., on the threshing, floor.