ORDER Henderson, J. - This is a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate of Chittagong to show cause why the conviction of the petitioner under S. 332, Penal Code should not be set aside. The question raised in the Rule is the legality of a distraint taken under the provisions of the Bengal Village Self-Government Act. I had to consider a similar question under the old Act in the case of Dharanidhar Jana and Another Vs. Kedar Nath Das, AIR 1945 Cal 48 . 2. Prosecution witness 1, a chowkidar, went to the house of the petitioner to execute a warrant for the realization of arrears of this union rate for two quarters. The legality of the warrant is attacked on two grounds (1) that it included a demand for two quarters; and (2) that the defaulters' list was not published previous to the issue of the warrant. The learned Sessions Judge did not refer specifically to these objections but dealt with it as a matter of irregularity. 3. Under S. 41, payment of the rate and recovery by distraint shall be made in accordance with rules. Under R. 14 the rate is to be paid in equal quarterly instalments. Under R. 18, immediately after the 15th day from the date on which an instalment becomes due, the board shall prepare a list of defaulters and publish the relative portion in each village. If payment is not made within 15 days of publication, the sum due shall be recovered in accordance with the procedure laid down in Rr. 19 to 27. 4. It is conceded by Mr. Chatterjee, appearing on behalf of the Crown, that there is no definite rule by which a warrant can be issued for the recovery of arrears for more than one quarter. In my judgment it would be quite wrong to infer that other arrears may be automatically included. Rule 18 seems to have been framed in such a way as to ensure the regular and punctual realisation of the rates in a businesslike manner. I can find nothing to suggest that the board should be allowed to let things slide and then issue one warrant to recover heavy arrears. Such a procedure would be advantageous neither to the board nor to the rate payer. At any rate, I am not prepared to read into the rule something which is not there. 5. I can find nothing to suggest that the board should be allowed to let things slide and then issue one warrant to recover heavy arrears. Such a procedure would be advantageous neither to the board nor to the rate payer. At any rate, I am not prepared to read into the rule something which is not there. 5. The other objection is, in my opinion, equally well founded. The terms in which R. 18 is drawn up show that the failure to publish the defaulters' list is more than an irregularity. Publication is a condition precedent to the issue of a warrant. This is clear from the fact that a period of grace is given to the rate payer and a warrant cannot be issued until that period has expired. 6. For these reasons it must be held that the issue of the warrant was illegal and the conviction under S. 332, Penal Code, cannot be supported. Mr. Chatterjee, however, contended that the conviction should be altered to one under S. 323, Penal Code. I accept that contention. 7. The petitioner denied that any occurrence took place at all. It is, therefore, not surprising that the Courts below accepted the prosecution version. On the demand being made the petitioner refused to pay. Prosecution witness 1 then read out the warrant and attached certain articles. The petitioner then agreed to pay and went away on the pretext of getting money. Instead of doing that be collected some friends and assaulted the chowkidar. Clearly he is not protected by the right of private defence. 8. The Rule is made absolute to this extent that the conviction is altered into one under S. 323, Penal Code and the fine reduced to one of Rs. 50. The petitioner must surrender to his bait and pay the fine so reduced.