Resistance to Fiscal's officer taking property—Penal Code, s. 181—Resistanceto measurement of land by Fiscal's officer—Civil Procedure Code. ■<. 237.
Resistance to a Fiscal's officer measuring the land which was directedto be seized, is not an offence under section 181 of the Penal Code.
HE accused was charged with having offered resistance to thetaking of property by the lawful authority of a public
. servant, to wit: K. Sittara Pupalu Udaiyar. a Fiscal’s officer,knowing or having reason to believe that he was a public servant,and thereby committed an offence, punishable under section 181of the Penal Code.
The Police Magistrate held that the accused resisted themeasurement, of the garden pointed out bv the judgment-creditor,which measurement was necessary for purposes of seizure by the.Fiscal’s officer, and that the resistance amounts to a resistance totaking of "property within the meaning of section 181. Hesentenced him to a fine of Rs. "0
The accused appealed.
Jayewardena, for appellant.
i'nr. aide. vull.
20th May. 1001. Lawrie. A.C.J.—
Section 237 of the Civil Procedure Code regulates the mode ofseizure: “ A seizure of immovable property shall be made by a" notice signed by the Fiscal phohibiting the judgment-debtor“ from transferring or charging the property in any way. The
“ notice shall specifythe. name. • situation and boundaries of
“ the land seized, and shall be < proclaimed at some place on or“ adjacent to such property by beat of tom-tom or other customary
SITTARA PUPALU v. NALL AT A MPT et al.P. G., Butticaloa, Id.327.
( nn )" mode, and a copy of the notice shall be affixed by the Fiscal to‘' a conspicuous part of the property and of the court-house and
of the Fiscal’s office;But in no case shall the Fiscal enter
" upon actual possession of the immovable property so seized.”The law supports a Fiscal in dischargiug these duties of seizure,Sic., and makes resistance or obstruction an offence; but it shallnot be accounted an offence if a man in possession insists on theFiscal keeping strictly within the terms of the Ordinance. Itseems to me that it was not a part of the Fiscal’s duty to measurethe land. Can it be said, as the Magistrate says, that the measure-ment was necessary for the purposes of seizure?
It is not explained why the complainant did not seize the landby signing and affixing the notice of seizure, and hv beating tom-toms; perhaps it was because be was uncertain whether the landbelonged to the judgment-debtor or to the first accused’s wife.
1 am of the opinion that the accused "kept within the letter ofthe law, and that his conduct did not amount to an offencepunishable under section 181. and I must set- aside the conviction.
SITTARA PUPALU v. NALLATAMPI et al