S KUPPUSWAMI AYYAR Vs. SECYOF STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application to revise the order of the District Munsif Chidambaram dismissing the claim petition of the petitioner. Some cases of saccharine were seized on 5 May 1926, by the Customs authorities at Kanda-mangalam on the British frontier. On 29 June 1926, the Collector of Sea Customs, Madras, imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,000 under Section 167, Clause 8, Sea Customs Act and under Section 7, Land Customs Act of 1924, on Raju Naidu, the person who tried to smuggle the cases of saccharine into British India territory. The order imposing the penalty was served on Raju Naidu on 15 July 1926. On 20 July 1926, the Sub-magistrate of Vanur was requisitioned by the Customs authorities to issue a warrant for attachment of a motor car which was seized by the customs authorities on 5 May 1926 along with the cases of saccharine. The attachment was effected on 17 September 1926 under Section 386, Criminal P.C., and it was sold on 28 January 1927. On 19 January 1927, a letter was addressed by the Inspector of Customs of Kandamangalam to the District Magistrate of South Arcot to take action for realization of the penalty imposed on Raju Naidu under Section 193, Sea Customs Act. Section 193 says: When an officer of Sea Customs who has adjudged a penalty or increased rate of duty against any person under this Act is unable to realize the unpaid amount thereof from such goods, such officer may notify in writing to any Magistrate within the local limits of whose jurisdiction such person or any goods belonging to him may be, the name and residence of the said person and the amount of penalty or increased rate of duty unrecovered....

(2.) On the requisition of the Inspector a warrant of attachment of immovable property of Raju Naidu was issued under Section 386, Clause 8, Criminal P.C. on 16 April 1927. The District Munsif of Chidambaram to whom the application was made directed the attachment and attachment was effected on 17 July 1927. The petitioner filed a claim under Order 21, Rule 58 alleging that the property was his and that he was in possession of it. The District Munsif found that the petitioner's title was a bogus one and that he was not in possession. The petitioner has filed this application against the order.

(3.) The first point of Mr. T. M. Krishna-swami Ayyar on behalf of the petitioner is that the District Munsif had no jurisdiction to attach the property alleged to belong to Raju Naidu on the ground that there was no proper decree. When this case came on some months ago, I directed the District Munsif to take evidence and record a finding on the question whether Raju Naidu had any goods belonging to him within the jurisdiction of the District Magistrate of South Arcot. He had recorded a finding and the finding is that Raju Naidu was possessed of a motor car within the jurisdiction of the District Magistrate of South Arcot on the date when the District Magistrate was asked to move in the matter under Section 193.