Full Judgment
Wallach, J.
1. The decision of the Court below cannot stand. The applicant, as surety for his brother's appearance in a criminal case, deposited a certain sum of money.
2. The applicant's brother was fined in that case and to levy the fine the money which the applicant had deposited as security for his brother's appearance has been attached. The applicant thereupon applied that his property should not be attached and that his brother's fine should not be levied from his property and that the money be returned to him.
3. The Magistrate says that he got the Sub Inspector to investigate the matter and that the applicant had been informed at the time of the attachment. Ha gives no other reason for dismissing the application. The learned Sessions Judge says that ' it appears that the surety and Banwari were brothers, that being the case, Banwari and others were as much owners of the money as Girdhari, so I think the Court was right in deducting the fine from the amount of security.' There is nothing to show that the money which the applicant deposited was not his own and there is no justification for seizing the money which had been deposited by Girdhari Lal as security for his brother's appearance in order to levy the fine directed to be paid by the brother.
4. I fail to see why the Sessions Judge thinks that what belongs to Girdhari Lal also belongs to Banwari Lal. I have grave doubts, even assuming that the brothers were members of a joint Hindu family, whether money deposited in the above circumstances could be attached. I Consider the action of the lower Courts unjustified in law and direct that the money be returned to the applicant.