CHHANGANI, J.—The petitioners Gobaria, Sohan and Sitaram sons of Bhopa, Ganchi of Jodhpur, have filed this revision against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, dated 23rd May, 1963, setting aside their discharge by the Additional Munsif Magistrate No. 1, Jodhpur, and directing a further enquiry against them.

2. The facts leading to the order of remand may be briefly stated as follows:—

The Tehsildar Jodhpur exercising powers of Collector under sec. 230 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) issued a warrant for the attachment of the movable property of Bhopa Ganchi. The warrant was to be executed before 29th of August, 1962. The warrant was endorsed to Revenue Inspector Chanwar and Patwari Jhalamand. It appears that the warrant was not expected to be executed before 29th of August, 1962 and consequently, on that date the Revenue Inspector submitted an application to the Tehsildar for exten-ding the date. The Tehsildar passed an order extending the date of the execution of the warrant upto 20th of August, 1962. The extended date was not incorporated in the warrant. On 30th August, 1962, Somnath Revenue Inspector along with some other persons went to the field of Bhopa to execute the warrant and to attach cows and one calf of Bhopa. When the Revenue Inspector was returning with the attached cattle, the accused-petitioners who are sons of Bhopa, assaulted the Revenue Inspector and his party and snatched away the attached cattle. Somnath lodged information with the Police and eventually the petitioners were challaned under secs. 323 and 392, Indian Penal Code, in the court of the Additional Munsif Magis trate No. 1, Jodhpur. The magistrate after recording the evidence, noted certain defects in the warrant. He found —

(1) that the order extending the date of the warrant was not sealed by the Tehsildar and no new warrant of attachment was issued; and

(2) that the warrant of attachment was issued in the name of two persons According to the Munsif Magistrate it ought to have been issued to one person for execution.

On the basis of these defects the Additional Munsif Magistrate expressed an opinion that the public servants were not in lawful discharge of their duty and the accused-petitioner committed no offence in removing the property from their possession. He accordingly discharged the three petitioners. The State filed a revision application which was heard by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, The Additional Sessions Judge expressed a contrary view. He held that the principle relied upon by the Additional Munsif Magistrate that a warrant cannot be endorsed to more than one person is applicable only to warrants under O. 21, r. 24 (2) Civil Procedure Code and cannot be applied to the warrants issued under sec. 230 of the Act. As regards the absence of the seal on the order of the Tehsildar extending the date, he held that the defect was of a minor nature. In this view of the matter, he set aside the order of discharge and remanded the case for further enquiry.

3. It may be stated at the outset that there is no bar in law against the en-dorsement of warrants in favour of more than one person. The Addl. Munsif Magis trate and the Additional Sessions Judge both fell into error in expressing the view that the warrant must be endorsed only to one person. They relied in this connec-tion upon the State vs. Banarsi Lal (1). The decision, in my opinion, does not lay down the principle sought to be deduced by the courts below. It that case the war-rant of attachment was on a printed form, directing the Nazir-Amin to execute it Although there was no Amin appointed for the court, the court issuing: the warrant omitted to score out the word "Amin" and the warrant was executed by the Nazi of the court. Emphasising the omission on the part of court to score out the name of the "Amin" the learned Judge observed that the warrant was defective because while the printed form mentioned both Nazir an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document