Basil Scott, C.J.
1. The accused and his wife were living together in a house in Ahmedabad and were liable for Rs. 2-1-0, in respect of privy tax for the house they were living in under Section 82 of Act III of 1901. A bill for the sum claimed for the tax was presented to the accused although the bill itself was made out in the name of his wife. The bill not having been paid notice of demand in the statutory form prescribed in Schedule B was served upon the accused and on his failure to pay a warrant was served upon him by the complainant Lakshmishankar Maganlal who was a clerk in the Cess-collection Department of the Ahmedabad Municipality. When the warrant of attachment was taken to the accused for execution according to law the accused obstructed the complainant in the execution of the warrant. For this he has been charged under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code and there is no doubt that he is guilty if the complainant was a public servant executing his duty within the meaning of that section of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Public servants are defined by the Penal Code, Section 21. Clause (10) of that section includes in the term 'public servant' every officer whose duty it is as such officer to receive any property for the secular purpose of any Taluka or District.
3. We are of opinion that the complainant being clerk in the Cess-collection Department of the Municipality falls within the words of Clause (10), which we have read, and we are supported in that conclusion by the judgment of this Court delivered in the case of Reg v. Nantamram Uttamram (1869) 6 B. H. C. Cr. C. 64,
4. We, therefore, think that the conviction was right and we dismiss the application.