1961 (2) TMI 78 - SC - Indian Laws

Court affirms legality of buffalo attachment in execution of decree, convicts appellants for criminal trespass and causing injuries.

Teeka and others Versus State of Uttar Pradesh

The court upheld the validity of the attachment of buffaloes by the amin in execution of a decree, deeming it legal. It also affirmed the authority of the ... - Issues Involved:1. Legality of the attachment of buffaloes.2. Authority of the amin and the sapurdar in keeping the attached buffaloes.3. Whether the appellants committed an offense under Section 441 of the Indian Penal Code.4. Whether the appellants committed an offense under Section 325, read with Sections 147 and 149, of the Indian Penal Code.Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the Attachment of Buffaloes:The appellants contended that the attachment of the buffaloes was illegal, and thus, taking away their own buffaloes from the possession of the decree-holder did not constitute an offense under Section 424 of the Indian Penal Code. The court noted that Har Narain had obtained a decree against Sunehri Jogi, and in execution of that decree, the buffaloes were attached by the amin. The appellants did not question the validity of the attachment in the claim-petition, nor did they raise this point before the Sessions Judge. The court presumed the official acts were done correctly and found no defects in the warrant of attachment or the manner of effecting the attachment. Thus, the attachment was deemed valid.2. Authority of the Amin and the Sapurdar in Keeping the Attached Buffaloes:The appellants argued that even if the attachment was valid, the amin had no authority to keep the buffaloes in the custody of the sapurdar, and the sapurdar had no power to keep them with the decree-holder. The court referred to Order XXI, Rule 43, of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows the attaching officer to keep the attached property in his custody or that of a subordinate. The relevant rule framed by the Allahabad High Court (Rule 116) also empowers the attaching officer to keep the animals in the custody of a sapurdar or any other respectable person. The court held that the decree-holder's possession was legal as he acted only as a bailee of the sapurdar. The court further explained that removing the buffaloes from the legal possession of the court or its agents constituted wrongful gain and wrongful loss, making the appellants guilty under Section 424 of the Indian Penal Code.3. Whether the Appellants Committed an Offense under Section 441 of the Indian Penal Code:The appellants contended that they did not commit trespass with the intent to commit an offense or cause annoyance to the decree-holder. The court clarified that the appellants entered the house of the decree-holder with the intent to remove the attached cattle, constituting an offense under Section 424. Thus, the appellants were guilty of criminal trespass under Section 441.4. Whether the Appellants Committed an Offense under Section 325, Read with Sections 147 and 149, of the Indian Penal Code:The appellants argued that their primary objective was to recover their cattle, and the use of force was only a subsidiary object. They contended that in the absence of a specific charge regarding the use of force, they should not have been convicted. The court noted that the charge mentioned Section 149, but it did not explicitly state that the members of the assembly knew that grievous hurt was likely to be caused. However, under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, any error in the charge would not invalidate the sentence unless it resulted in a failure of justice. The court found that the appellants had ample opportunity to meet the case, and the evidence showed they entered the premises armed with lathies and caused serious injuries. Both lower courts had accepted this evidence, and the court concluded that there was no failure of justice. Therefore, the appellants were rightly convicted under Section 325, read with Section 149.Conclusion:The appeals were dismissed, and the convictions and sentences imposed by the lower courts were upheld.