The Public Prosecutor vs Kayaniyil Kunhamad and Others

The Joint Magistrate has misapprehended the meaning of Section 8 of Act II of 1864. This does not require that the demand in writing

(referred to by the Joint Magistrate as the ""warrant,"") should be shown to the defaulter before or at the time of distraint: but merely that it should be

produced."" This simply means that the distrainer should have it in his possession at the time of distraint, and should show it as his authority to any

one interested in the attached property who may be present and disposed to question the legality of his action.

In the present case there is evidence that the adhigari had the demand in writing in his possession at the time of distraint: and no question has

been asked of the prosecution witnesses (so far as respondent''s Counsel can show) even tending to suggest that any of the respondents asked him

to produce it.

The view we have taken above is in accordance with that of the learned Judges in Marakkar, In re 30 Ind. Cas. 159 ; 29 M.L.J. 60.

The convictions of the respondents by the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Ponnani, has been set aside by the Joint Magistrate solely on the ground

above indicated. We must, therefore, set aside his order of acquittal and direct him to restore the appeal to file and dispose of it according to law.