E.C. Chinnaswami Pillai vs Chairman of the Arkonam Union

Sadasiva Aiyar, J.—It is clear to me that the doors ought not to have been distrained u/s 82, Clause (2) (i), of the Local Boards Act, as they

are not moveables see the definition of Immovable in General Clauses Act and also Purushottania v. Municipal Council of Bellary 14 M. 467 on

the interpretation of the analogous section in the District Municipalities Act . The bill collector was, therefore, not acting in the lawful discharge of

any duty imposed on him as a public servant when he proceeded to distrain the doors. The conviction u/s 353 cannot, therefore, stand.

It is unnecessary to consider the rather difficult question whether the Appellate Magistrate was precluded by Section 556 of the Criminal

Procedure Code from hearing the appeal, as I think that the Magistrate who tried the case in the first instance was justified on the evidence in his

finding that the petitioner did assault the bill collector, though the assault might have been committed on sudden and grave provocation.

I alter the conviction to one u/s 358. Indian Penal. Code, and reduce the sentence to a nominal fine of three rupees.

The balance of fine will be refunded.