RAJENDRA PRASAD MISSIR Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts giving rise to Criminal Reference No. 18 of 1932 were as follows: One Ramnandan Missir was convicted under Secs.143 and 188, I.P.C., and under Section 17(2), Criminal Law Amendment Act. Under the latter section he was sentenced to 18 months rigorous imprisonment. Under each of the Sections 143 and 188, I, P.C., he was sentenced to a month's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50. The fine was not paid, with the result that a warrant was issued for its realization. In execution of the warrant a buffalo and three chairs which were found on the premises occupied by Rajendra Prasad Missir, father of Ramnandan Missir, were seized. Thereafter Rajendra Prasad Missir appeared before the Magistrate who had issued the warrant and claimed the attached buffalo and chairs, alleging that they belonged not to Ramnandan but to the joint family of which he and the petitioner were members. Rajendra Prasad's objection to the attachment was overruled.

(2.) In Criminal Reference No. 19 of 1932 one Maheshkant Chaudhry was convicted under Section 17, Criminal Law Amendment Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50. The fine not having been paid, a warrant of attachment was issued, and in execution of the warrant 25 maunds of paddy, three maunds of marua and certain other articles were seized.

(3.) Thereupon Deonarain Chaudhry, father of Maheshkant, appeared before the Magistrate who had issued the warrant, and objected to the seizure. He claimed that the grain and other articles seized belonged to the joint family of which he and his son were members and that they were not the exclusive properties of his son. The objection was overruled by the Magistrate. The Sessions Judge of Darbhanga has referred both these cases to the High Court under Section 438, Criminal P.C. In the opinion of the Sessions Judge the property of the joint family was not attachable in either case in execution of the warrants that were issued, and he therefore recommended that the things seized should in both cases be released from attachment. The question for decision in Criminal Revision No. 251 of 1932 is precisely the same.