AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Macpherson, J.—This a report by the Sessions Judge of Muzaffarpur for the orders of the High Court that attachments u/s 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been made in the District of Muzaffarpur on a warrant issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Bettiah which has not been endorsed by the District Magistrate of Muzaffarpur.
The report apparently contemplates two warrants, but there seems to have been only one warrant. Three persons appear to have presented petitions of claim under Sub-section 6(a) to the District Magistrate of Muzaffarpur, who having no jurisdiction under Sub-section 6 (6) because he did not endorse the warrant of attachment, directed them to the But-Divisional Magistrate of Bettiah. They then moved the Sessions Judge.
The report contains no recommendation.
It is clear that the attachment was illegal since an attachment of property is not authorised in a District other than that of the issuing Magistrate except when the order of attachment has been endorsed by the District Magistrate within whose District the property to be attached is situate. It need not be determined whether the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had jurisdiction to allow under sub Section 6(a) the claims made to him by the applicants. It clearly appears that all attachments in the Muzaffarpur District on the strength of the order of attachment of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Bettiah are fundamentally illegal,
I accordingly set aside all the attachments made in that District on the strength of the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate dated the 5th July, 1929. It is, of course, open to him to proceed according to law.