1. The question we are called upon to answer, and the bare facts necessary for the purpose, appear from the order of reference made by the division bench:

"The appellants in Criminal Appeal 173 of 1964 have been convicted of the offence of robbery of a bus K.L.K. 2036 after it had been attached and was in the custody of the Amin,

Pw.1, under an attachment warrant issued by the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kottayam. The main question for decision in this case would be whether non-compliance of the provisions in 0.38, R.5 has the effect of making the order ultra vires and void and the consequent attachment a nullity and whether in passing such an order there is total lack of jurisdiction. As the decisions are not uniform and as the question involved is of considerable importance, we refer the above said question for decision to a Full Bench."

Presumably the division bench is of the view that, if the order of attachment was void, there could be no actual possession, whether lawful or unlawful, with the Amin, or no dishonest intention on the part of the accused, so that the alleged removal of the bus would not amount to theft.

2. In a suit for money (O.S.107 of 1963 of the Sub Co