Skip to content


In Re: Ruppa Balusawmy Ayyar and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in112Ind.Cas.566
AppellantIn Re: Ruppa Balusawmy Ayyar and anr.
Excerpt:
penal code (act xlv of 1860), section 358 - assault on public servant seeking to distrain--distraint warrdntnot addressed by personal name of officer--seizure by servant of distraining officer at his direction--legality of distraint--objections to legality of distraint, when to be, taken. - - 1 clearly. ' this is a contention which should have been raised at an earlier stage, when it could have been determined clearly and easily......as the facts alleged disclosed an offence punishable under that section. the only important point raised is that the and a was not an article which could legally be distrained, as it comes within the classification of 'tools of an artizan' in section 60 of the code of civil procedure. this point was not raised in the original or appellate court, and although an and a is said to be a vessel used in dyeing and the accused are dyers and weavers, it cannot be determined on the record mew whether this was a vessel in ordinary and regular use or could properly be regarded as one of their 'tools.' this is a contention which should have been raised at an earlier stage, when it could have been determined clearly and easily. i am not prepared to interfere in revision on this account.2. the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Reilly, J.

1. I do not agree with the contention that the warrant of distraint was illegal because it was not addressed to P.W. No. 1 by his personal name. It was addressed to him as 'Warrant Officer Third Division' and though that is not a title appearing in the Act, there is no doubt that it was sufficient to identify P.W. No. 1 clearly. Nor do I agree with the contention that the distraint of the and a was illegal because P.W. No. 1 did not seize it with his own hands but directed P.W. No. 2, his peon, to take it. The fact that Section 353, Indian Penal Code, was not mentioned in the complaint is immaterial, as the facts alleged disclosed an offence punishable under that section. The only important point raised is that the and a was not an article which could legally be distrained, as it comes within the classification of 'tools of an artizan' in Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This point was not raised in the Original or Appellate Court, and although an and a is said to be a vessel used in dyeing and the accused are dyers and weavers, it cannot be determined on the record mew whether this was a vessel in ordinary and regular use or could properly be regarded as one of their 'tools.' This is a contention which should have been raised at an earlier stage, when it could have been determined clearly and easily. I am not prepared to interfere in revision on this account.

2. The petition is dismissed.


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