JUDGMENT

King, J. - This is an appeal by the Local Government against the acquittal of one Shib Lal, who was convicted by a Magistrate of the First Class u/s 326, Penal Code, but was acquitted on appeal by the learned Sessions Judge. The facts of this case are practically undisputed. An extra amin named Karan Behari Lal went to the village of Nandgaon on 18th February 1932, for the purpose of collecting certain arrears of canal dues from Shib Lal and others. As he apprehended resistance, he took with him two constables, named, Pohap Singh and Manzur Ahmad, in addition to his peon, Kadir Bakhsh. On arrival at the village he was joined by Parshadi Lal, patwari, and Ajairam, the mukhia of the village and another man. In all there were seven persons of the amin's party including himself. When the party reached Shib Lal's house the amin sent for Shib Lal and. showed him. the warrant of attachment, and demanded payment of the arrears, due. Shib Lal refused to pay and also stated that he would not allow his property to be attached. Thereupon the amin ordered the attachment of Shib Lal's buffalo. The amin's peon and Pohab Singh, constable, advanced to seize the buffalo. Then Shib Lal and. some men with him began to throw bricks at them and Shib Lal, who had a sword, struck the constable, Pohap Singh a severe blow upon the arm wounding him grievously. Other villagers came to the help of the amin's party whereupon Shib Lal and the others ran away. Shib Lal admitted that the amin, together with his peon, the constables and others, went to his house on the day in question, but he denied that any warrant of attachment was shown to him and denied that the amin made any demand for payment of arrears. They said that they tried to catch him whereupon he told them to leave him alone. He admits that when the constable, Pohap Singh, advanced to seize the buffalo, he struck Pohap Singh a blow with his sword. The learned Sessions Judge has accepted the facts stated by the prosecution witnesses but has acquitted the accused on the ground that the warrant of attachment was invalid and that the amin's procedure in attaching the property under an invalid warrant was illegal and that Shib Lal was justified in the exercise of the right of private defence of property in treating the amin and his party as robbers and in resisting the attachment of the buffalo by force. The learned Government Advocate has argued that the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge regarding the exercise of the right of private defence in the circumstances of this case was erroneous.

2. In our opinion, the learned Sessions Judge was wrong in holding that the amin and his party could justifiably be treated as robbers. It is conceded by the prosecution that the warrant for the attachment of Shib Lal's property was invalid on 18th February. The warrant had been issued on the 11th January and was valid for fifteen days only and had therefore expired on the 26th January. It is admitted therefore that the warrant had no force on the 18th February. On this admission we think it would be difficult to hold that the accused was deprived of the right of private defence, by reason of the provisions of Section 99; Penal Code. Under that section he would not have the right of private defence if the seizure of the buffalo was done or attempted to be done by the amin acting in good faith under colour of his office. As the duration of the warrant had admittedly expired, it must be conceded that the amin was negligent in failing to observe that the duration of the warrant had expired and that it was no longer in force. The amin was obviously acting "in good faith" in the popular sense of that expression, because there is no suggestion that he was actuated by any malice or that he had any dishonest intention. The expression "in good faith" is however used in the Penal Code in a very special sense, and we doubt whether it could be held that the amin acted with due care and attention in the exercise