The court has the power to direct the attachment of the salary of a government servant for the purpose of satisfying a decree passed against him.

JUDGMENT

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - The defects pointed out by the office is overruled.

2. The petitioner has preferred this misc. petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for the following reliefs :

"The salary of the petitioner i.e. Rs.51,001/- per month in EMP ID: RJNA199928003917 attached in pursuance of Criminal Case No.183/2016 (Bhairu Lal Vs. Mahesh Kumar) pending before the concerned court below and the cheque-amount be deducted in pro-rate basis and the same be paid accordingly to the complainant and other persons, may kindly be attached."

3. The allegation in the present facts and circumstances requires only the assistance of the State of Rajasthan which learned Public Prosecutor accepts to render.

4. With the consent of both the parties, the matter is finally heard.

5. Brief facts of this case, as noticed by this Court, are that the complainant filed a case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act against the present petitioner, as he had borrowed certain amount from him and in lieu of the amount, gave cheque bearing No.890944 of SBBJ, Branch Bhopalganj, Bhilwara of Account No.51046330594. The said cheques were dishonored and after giving the legal notice, the proceedings under Negotiable Instrument Act were initiated.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner accepts complete liability of the petitioner arising out of the cheque in question and does not wish to contest the Negotiable Instrument Act proceeding on merits.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner makes a limited submission that the petitioner is a regular Government servant and is serving on the post of Radiographer. It is also contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the basic salary of the petitioner is Rs.50,800/-, DA Rs.4572/-, HRA Rs.4064/-, Mess Allowances Rs.250/-, SPI Pay Rs.1000/- and washing allowances Rs.150/- per month which comes to Rs.60,836/- per month.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that out of gross salary of Rs.60,836, Rs.9,000/- are being deducted by the State of Rajasthan per month, as per the pay-slip of the petitioner. Thus, as per the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is drawing Rs.51,001/- per month, as indicated in the pay-slip of the petitioner for the month of October, 2018.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there were certain compelling circumstances which resulted into the petitioner borrowing such huge amount and due to his inability to pay the same, the petitioner is facing the trial.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not press for prayer 2 & 3. It is also contended that petitioner is pressing only the prayer No.1, which reads as follows :-

"The salary of the petitioner i.e. Rs.51,001/- per month in EMP ID: RJNA199928003917 attached in pursuance of Criminal Case No.183/2016 (Bhairu Lal Vs. Mahesh Kumar) pending before the concerned court below and the cheque-amount be deducted in prorate basis and the same be paid accordingly to the complainant and other persons, may kindly be attached."

11. Learned Public Prosecutor is not opposed to the prayer 1, as while representing the State of Rajasthan he appreciates the facts that the petitioner is a permanent Government employee of State of Rajasthan and attachment of his salary could be a good way of resolving his liabilities.

12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, this Court observes that the legislative intention of Negotiable Instrument Act was that the Negotiable Instrument, may be cheque once issued should be honored by the parties. Looking to the facts of the case, the petitioner seems to be a habitual offender but since the petitioner is readily accepting to get his pay attached for the purpose of necessary payments, it would be in the interest of justice that the petitioner is permitted to get his pay attached. On being asked, learned counsel for the petitioner has informed this Court that wife of the petitioner is also a Government servant, and therefore, the f