RAMAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these appeals are directed against one and the same order dated 9 -9 -1983 of the Additional District Judge, Cuttack, in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 337 -C of 1976, the accused being the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 295 of 1983 and the State being the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 312 of 1913.

(2.) THE Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been instituted against accused Raman Singh under Section 5(l)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act on the allegation that his assets are disproportionate to his known sources of income. The properties both moveables and immovables belonging to said Raman Singh were attached pursuant to order dated 29 -10 -1976 under paragraph 3 of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944. An application was filed by Appellant Raman Singh on 28 -7 -1982 for lifting the attachment in respect of properties described in Schedule A and B of the said application under paragraph 9 of the Ordinance, inter alia on the grounds that he being an agriculturist the immovable properties described in Schedule A are exempted from attachment under Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure and further he is in dire need of money for his maintenance and his his insurance policies described in Schedule B should be lifted from attachment. The State was given an opportunity of being heard and the State filed an objection. Another, application was also filed by said Raman Singh on 15 -1 -1983 for lifting the attachment with respect to same fixed deposits which though matured since 1976 were lying without any interest. After hearing both these applications of Raman Singh and the objector -State, the learned Additional District Judge passed the impugned order dated 9 -9 -1983 whereunder he released the Life insurance policies described in Schedule B excepting item. No. 1 thereof and rejected the prayer with regard to lifting of attachment so far as immovable properties ale concerned as well as the fixed deposits covered under the application dated 14 -7 -1983. Raman Singh is the Appellant with respect to that part of the order refusing his prayer to life the attachment with respect to immovable properties as well as the fixed deposits and the State is the Appellant with respect to the part of the order lifting attachment with respect to the life Insurance policies of said Raman Singh.

(3.) SO far as the appeal by the accused concerned, it depends upon an interpretation of Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Mr. Mukherjee the learned Counsel for the Appellant, has submitted that the accused must be held to be an agriculturist and therefore, the immovable properties are exempted from the purview of attachment under Section 60(1)(b) and (c) of the Code. There is no material on record on the basis of which the Court can come to a finding that the accused is an 'agriculturist'. Mr. Mukherjee places reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shrimant Appasaheb Tuljaram Desai and Ors. v. Bhalchandra Vithalrao Thube : A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 589, but in my view the said decision has no application in the present case. Even giving the widest connotation to the word "agriculturist", in order to avail the exemption provided for under Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the person must prove that he was basically engaged in agricultural operation. The object of the provisions being to save the bonafide agriculturists from undue harassment and for providing them with shelter, the said object will be frustrated if the exemptions are extended to those who might be having some lands but do not take agriculture as their main occupation. In that view of the matter, the order of the Additional District Judge rejecting the prayer of the applicant before him for lifting the attachment with respect to immovable properties on the ground that the applicant is not an agriculturist cannot be said to be illegal in any manner.