DULESINGH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) L . This revision petition has been field by the petitioner against an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam dated 16 -4 -1979 in execution of warrant for recovery of fine,

(2.) THE facts necessary for the decision of this revision petition are that the petitioner was convicted by the judgment of the Court of Sessions, Ratlam on 28th February 1974 for an offence under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to four years R.I. and fine of Rs. 5,000/ -. In default of payment of fine it was ordered that he shall suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year. While the petitioner was serving the sentence imposed on him, warrant for recovery of fine was issued and it is not disputed that the last warrant which was issued for recovery of fine was dated 26th December 1975. At that time in execution of that warrant nothing could be recovered and therefore the petitioner remained in custody even after he had served out the substantive sentence and also the sentence of one year which was in default of payment of fine. After he had served out this sentence what happened was that the warrant which was issued on 26th December 1975 was not withdrawn and it remained and ultimately the crops standing on agricultural land sown by the petitioner were attached under that warrant. The petitioner moved an application to the trial court that as he has already served out the sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of fine, the crops which were standing on the field sown by him should not be attached and the amount of fine should not be recovered from him. The learned Additional Sessions Judge by the impugned order held that the warrant was not withdrawn and it was still in force and as that Warrant was issued before the petitioner had served out the sentence in default of payment of fine, it could not be said that the warrant was illegally issued. Learned Judge therefore felt that if in execution of this warrant the crops are attached and sold it could not be said that anything contrary to law is being done. The learned Judge therefore rejected the prayer of the petitioner and it is against this order that the present revision petition has been filed

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the State contended that as the warrant was issued on 26 -12 -1975 it could not be said to be illegal and consequently the view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Could not be said to be erroneous in law.