HAKIM SINGH Vs. STATE AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As Sobaran Singh, against whom a case u/S. 16 read with S. 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was reported was not traceable, proceedings U/SS. 87 and 88 of the CrPC were initiated and some moveables, including two buffaloes and household utensils, were seized as belonging to the absconder. The present applicant, Hakim Singh, filed objections to the seizure, urging that the said property belonged to him and not to Sobaran Singh. The learned Magistrate, however, after due enquiry, came to the conclusion that the property belonged jointly to Sobaran Singh and Hakim Singh. Hakim Singh filed a revision application against this order but it was rejected by the ADM (J). The learned Magistrate thereafter directed sale of the two animals, releasing the household utensils from attachment. Hakim Singh went up to the ADM (J) in revision against the order directing sale and, having failed in that court, he has filed this application contending that the animals cannot be sold since he has proprietary interests in them jointly with Sobaran Singh, as found by the learned Magistrate. The learned counsel for the applicant argued that since the animals did not exclusively belong to Sobaran Singh and since Hakim Singh was a joint owner thereof along with Sobaran Singh, the order of sale of the buffaloes is illegal.

(2.) After a scrutiny of the decisions of the various High Courts, I have reached the conclusion that an undivided share in moveable property is without doubt property within the meaning of S. 88 of the CrPC and is attachable under that Sec. but that Sec. does not permit attachment of an undivided share in moveable property by physical seizure of the entire moveable property and the attachment by seizure of the buffaloes in this case is illegal.

(3.) In The Secretary of State for India v/s. Rangasamy Ayyangar ( : ILR XXXIX Mad. 831) a Full Bench of the Madras High Court held that the right, title and interest of a member of an undivided family could be attached u/S. 88 of the CrPC. The case appears to have related to attachment of a share in moveable property. In Tigala Veeraya v/s. Hyderabad State ( : AIR 1951 Hyd. 81), which was decided under the corresponding provision of the Hyderabad CrPC, the Hyderabad High Court took the view that the interest of a member in the property of joint family was attachable but the procedure to be adopted was to appoint a receiver for collection and realization of the absconder's share in the property. In this case, the property attached included both moveables and immoveable.