PINNAMRAJU RAJAMRAJU Vs. POTTURI TIRUPATIRAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Four persons were accused before the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Amalapur for offences under Secs.424 and 379, I.P.C. The facts alleged against them ware that in execution, of a decree obtained by P.W. 2 against one P. Subbaraju, since deceased, the decree-holder accompanied by an amin of the Munsiff's Court P.W. 1 went to attach cattle belonging to the estate of the deceased, and that after the amin had attached one cow, a calf and a she-buffalo, the accused drove them away. The Stationary Sub-Magistrate examined witnesses including P.W. 1 the Court amin, P.W. 2 the decree-holder and P. W s. 3, 4 and 5 attestors to the attachment list. The Stationary Sub-Magistrate discharged the accused under Section 253 (1) on the ground that the proceedings conducted by the amin P.W. 1 did not in law amount to actual attachment. He says: He (the amin) did not know what he had to do when he attached the property and so in the cross-examination he merely stated the be did nothing beyond notifying the distraint and writing up the attachment list. The omission was noticed by the counsel for the complainant and all the P. W s. 2 to 4 that came afterwards on subsequent dates were prepared with an answer on this point. In the circumstances, I consider that there was no valid attachment at all and that any obstruction to such an illegal attachment was not certainly punishable by law.

(2.) The complainant applied to the District Magistrate of East Godaveri to revise the above order of discharge but that application was dismissed, the District Magistrate making the following observation: It is quite clear from the evidence of P.W. 1, the amin, that he simply went to the place where the cattle were tied and proceeded to write up the distraint list and that the accused came up and removed the cattle from the place where they had been tied all the time. The amin did not take actual possession of the cattle at any time. The lower Court rightly in any opinion held that there had been no legal distraint of the cattle and that the accused committed no offence in removing the cattle.

(3.) On this ground the District Magistrate dismissed the revision petition. The complainant has applied to this Court to set aside the discharge and order a fresh enquiry.