1. The District Munsif had the alleged offence under Section 186, Indian Penal Code, brought to his notice in the Course of the execution case No. 166 of 1911. He got such notice on the 18th July 1911
2. Execution proceedings are Judicial Proceedings; see Sheik Bahadur v. Eradatill Mellich (1910) 12 J.L.C. 45 We do not agree with the ruling in Hara Charan Mukerjee v. King Emperor I.L.R. (1905) C. 367 to the contrary. Execution case No. 166 came to an end on the 27th July 1911 when it was dismissed. The learned District Munsif took action under Section 476 of the Crl. P. Code on the 25th November 1911 in the course of a different judicial proceeding, namely, on an application (C. P. No. 594 of 1911) by the decree holder for grant of sanction to prosecute Counter-Petitioners. We think that under the Full Bench ruling in Aiyakannu Pillai v. Emperor I.L.R. (1908) M. 49 the District Munsif's order under Section 476. Crl. Procedure Code is illegal and should be set aside.
3. We think that, as a Court of Revision, we have power to pass the order-the proper order which the District Munsif ought to have made. We therefore pass the proper order, namely, granting sanction to the decree-holder to prosecute the 2nd and 3rd petitioners (the first petitioner having died) for the offence under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code alleged to have been committed by them.