Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Muhammad Shafi and ors. Vs. Emperor

Muhammad Shafi and ors. vs Emperor

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Jun 11, 1941
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/495796

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Allahabad
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- - ..3. If the distress has not to be excessive and if an inventory has got to be given, I doubt very much if the law is satisfied by entering the weight only by approximation. Shafi disagreed with the estimate noted down in the list he could have endorsed a note to this effect or could have made an application t...

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Muhammad Shafi and ors.

Respondent

Emperor

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1941All344

Excerpt

- - ..3. if the distress has not to be excessive and if an inventory has got to be given, i doubt very much if the law is satisfied by entering the weight only by approximation. shafi disagreed with the estimate noted down in the list he could have endorsed a note to this effect or could have made an application to the district board.orderbajpai, j.1. the four applicants before me have been convicted of an offence under section 186, penal code, and sentenced to various sums of fine. the case for the prosecution is that mohammad shafi and his son qamruddin owned a provision shop in a village in the district of azamgarh. the district board used to levy some sort of tax. the tax remained unpaid and an amin went with a warrant of attachment. in pursuance of this warrant of attachment he attached certain moveables. the prosecution case is that he was prevented in removing the attached articles. the defence case is that the accused insisted that the articles should be weighed and a proper inventory given to them. i have looked at the inventory on the record and it appears that the weight of the attached articles was given by approximation only. the question thus arises whether the accused were justified in insisting on the attached articles being weighed or whether the amin was justified in noting the approximate weight of the articles only. under section 138, district boards act, it is provided in sub-clause 3:the distress shall not be excessive, that is to say, the property distrained shall be as nearly as possible equal in value to the amount recoverable under the warrant 2. and in sub-clouse (4) of the aforesaid section, it is said:the officer shall on seizing the property forth, with make an inventory thereof, and shall before removing the same give to the person in possession thereof at the time of seizure a copy of the inventory signed by him....3. if the distress has not to be excessive and if an inventory has got to be given, i doubt very much if the law is satisfied by entering the weight only by approximation. the learned magistrate says:..the work of the amins or any officer appointed to execute a warrant of attachment would become impracticable if they were supposed to make actual weighments of the moveable specially when they go out to attach grain, etc., on the threshing, floor.4. the.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

Bajpai, J.

1. The four applicants before me have been convicted of an offence under Section 186, Penal Code, and sentenced to various sums of fine. The case for the prosecution is that Mohammad Shafi and his son Qamruddin owned a provision shop in a village in the district of Azamgarh. The District Board used to levy some sort of tax. The tax remained unpaid and an amin went with a warrant of attachment. In pursuance of this warrant of attachment he attached certain moveables. The prosecution case is that he was prevented in removing the attached articles. The defence case is that the accused insisted that the articles should be weighed and a proper inventory given to them. I have looked at the inventory on the record and it appears that the weight of the attached articles was given by approximation only. The question thus arises whether the accused were justified in insisting on the attached articles being weighed or whether the amin was justified in noting the approximate weight of the articles only. Under Section 138, District Boards Act, it is provided in Sub-clause 3:

The distress shall not be excessive, that is to say, the property distrained shall be as nearly as possible equal in value to the amount recoverable under the warrant

2. And in Sub-clouse (4) of the aforesaid section, it is said:

The officer shall on seizing the property forth, with make an inventory thereof, and shall before removing the same give to the person in possession thereof at the time of seizure a copy of the inventory signed by him....

3. If the distress has not to be excessive and if an inventory has got to be given, I doubt very much if the law is satisfied by entering the weight only by approximation. The learned Magistrate says:..the work of the amins or any officer appointed to execute a warrant of attachment would become impracticable if they were supposed to make actual weighments of the moveable specially when they go out to attach grain, etc., on the threshing, floor.

4. The learned Judge says:

It was quite sufficient for the tax collector to note down the approximate weight of the articles. If Mohd. Shafi disagreed with the estimate noted down in the list he could have endorsed a note to this effect or could have made an application to the District Board....

5. To my mind it is the duty of the attaching officer to be as accurate as possible, Irreparable mischief might be done to the owner of the goods attached if only approximate weights are given. I am not concerned with the difficulty of the attaching officer. I have got to see that justice is administered evenly between the accused and the prosecutor and the difficulty of the attaching officer if he is to weigh the goods and to note the weight is more than met by the difficulty of the owner of the goods who later on has to allege and prove that the goods attached were more in weight than noted down by the amin. In this view of the matter, I do not think that any offence was committed by the applicants when they insisted that the goods should be weighed before they were removed. I allow this application, set aside the conviction and the sentence and direct that the fine, if paid,, should be refunded.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial