This revision application was re­manded by me to the trial Court with a direction upon the learned Deputy „Commissioner who had decided the case, to submit his finding and report on the following question: Whether or not the applicants were joint owners with the convict of the property which had been attach­ed and sold? The report has now been sub­mitted by the D. C., wherein he states that the applicants are not joint owners with the con­vict of the property which had been attached. (2) I had in my order of remand referred to the custom prevailing in the Garo Hills as to the recovery of fine due by a convicted person from the estate of his relatives, and relied upon the view of Commissioner Bentinck and Governor Sir Michael Keane. It seems to me that the custom prevailing in the matter of the recovery of fine ordered to be paid by a con­vict - a custom which has the force of law - in the Garo Hills is that it can be recovered from the relatives of an accused person only when the relatives have a joint interest in the property. In this case, it has been reported that the applicants have no joint interest in the property with the convict. (3) In the result, I set aside the order of the learned D.C., ordering the fine to be recovered from the applicants. The fine, if recovered, is to be refunded to the applicants. Revision allowed.