Skip to content


Queen-empress Vs. Kandappa Goundan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1897)ILR20Mad88
AppellantQueen-empress
RespondentKandappa Goundan
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code - act x of 1882, section 88--attachment of property as of an absconding person--claim to property attached--procedure. - - 2. in the first place the magistrate, whose action is impugned, gives in our opinion good reasons for his order......directs that, in default of payment of the fine, the offender shall be.....
Judgment:

1. We do not think this is a case for interference.

2. In the first place the Magistrate, whose action is impugned, gives in our opinion good reasons for his order. But secondly we are disposed to agree with the view taken in other Courts of Section 88, Criminal Procedure Code. What may be said with regard to that section would equally apply to Section 386.1 In both cases we think, if the Magistrate errs, the remedy of the aggrieved party is by civil suit. All that we can say is that, in cases of dispute, the Magistrate should stay the sale of the property seized to give the claimant time to establish his right.

1Warrant for levy of fine

Section 386--Whenever an offender is sentenced to pay a fine, the Court passing the sentence may, in its discretion, issue a warrant for the levy of the amount by distress and sale of any moveable property belonging to the offender, although the sentence directs that, in default of payment of the fine, the offender shall be imprisoned.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //