NAZIM HUSSAIN Vs. SRI LAXMINATH A. BHAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties. This is criminal revision Under Sec. 397, Criminal Procedure Code A decree was passed Under Sec. 125, Criminal Procedure Code in favour of Smt. Shahana Begum, respondent No. 2. Admittedly, she is the wife of Sabir Hussain. In pursuance of the decree, some property was attached as per attachment memo dated 1.8.1995 (Annexure II to the petition).

(2.) From the report of the attaching officer, it is clear that at the time of attachment Sabir Hussain was not available rather, the residents of the locality informed him that he has residing in Delhi. As regards the ownership of the property Nazim Hussain, revisionist, filed an objection before the learned lower Court that the property attached, as per attachment memo aforesaid, belongs to him. As against it, Smt. Shahana Begum filed an objection before the learned lower Court and he alleged that the property attached was the same property which was given to her in Dahej. It means that if her statement is accepted that the property belongs to the decree-holder, the decree-holder cannot get her own property attached in execution of the decree. This legal fallacy is quite apparent. Apart from this legal fallacy, there is no evidence on record to prove that the attached property belongs to Sabir Hussain, husband of Smt. Shahana Begum. There is statement versus statement regarding the same. Whereas Smt. Shahana Bagum states that the attached property belongs to her husband Sabir Hussain, the revisionist, Nazim Hussain states that it belongs to him. Therefore, there is no credible evidence on the record in prove that the property belongs to judgment debtor, Sabir Hussain.

(3.) The impugned order dated 18.12.1995 is based on surmise and conjectures. There is no legal evidence in support of the same. Therefore, the findings recorded by the learned lower Court deserves to be set aside. The revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 18.12.1995 is set aside. Cost easy. The learned lower Court shall ensure that the attached property is returned to the revisionist within a period of two months from today. Order accordingly.