1. The petitioners have been convicted and sentenced to fine under Section 206, Penal Code, for having cut and carried off crops which they knew to be. under attachment in execution of a certificate under Bengal Act I of 1895. The Sessions Judge has referred this order to be set aside, (1) because there was no offence committed under Section 206, Penal Code, because property attached for the realization of a demand under a certificate is not taken as a forfeiture or in satisfaction of a fine, and (2) if the petitioners prevented the crop from being taken in execution of a decree or order made by a Court of Justice and the Court of the Certificate Officer was such a Court no sanction under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the prosecution had been given.
2. We are of opinion that the offence is under the latter part of Section 206, Penal Code, for the amount due under the certificate cannot be regarded as a forfeiture or fine. It was money due under a decree, for the certificate has the force and effect of a decree of a Civil Court, Bengal Act I, 1895, Section 6 (1), and the law declares that it shall have such force and effect as regards the remedies for enforcing the same and so far only. If a judgment-debtor can with impunity break an attachment, as in the present case, there would be no remedy for enforcing payment under the decree. It seems to us that in this respect the Court issuing the certificate is vested with all the powers conferred by the law on a Civil Court to enforce compliance with the certificate by payment or by realization, through distress, of the amount so declared to be due. In this view we are of opinion that the Magistrate has rightly held that the petitioners have committed an offence under Section 206, Penal Code. No doubt sanction to the prosecution should have been given before the Magistrate took cognizance of that offence, but unless the want of such sanction has, in fact, occasioned a failure of justice (Section 587, Code of Criminal Procedure), the conviction is not bad only on that account. There is nothing in the proceedings to show that this is so. We, therefore, find no sufficient reason to interfere in revision.