Judgment Kamla Sahai, J. 1. One Hari Narayan Lal was convicted for several offences, and he was sentenced by an Assistant Sessions Judge to certain substantive terms of imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-or, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five months. The successor of the committing Magistrate issued a distress warrant under Sec.386(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for attachment and sale of the offenders movable property for realisation of the fine. The police officer concerned attached door planks, Chaukaths, cattle, etc., in execution of the warrant. Petitioner Aditya Narain Sinha, who is a brother of Hari Narain Lal, filed an application before the Magistrate, claiming that all the properties, both movable and in-movable, which had been attached, belonged to him, and that he was separate from his brother Hari Narain Lal for a long time. The learned Magistrate, Mr. C. M. Raza, has passed a peculiar order on the petitioners application. He has rejected the application, saying that legal action should be taken against the police if the police has attached the properties of any other than the offender. If he had only cared to peruse Sub-section (2) of Sec.386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he would not have fallen into a gross error and passed an order of the kind which he has done. That Sub-section provides that the State Government may make rules, among other things, "for the summary determination of any claim made by any person ether than the offender in respect of any property attached in execution of such warrant". In exercise of the power vested in the Government, it has made rules which have been published under notification No. 251-J.R., dated the 17th May, 1927, at page 689 of Part II of the Bihar and Orissa Gazette dated the 25th May, 1927. Rule 4 reads as follows: 4. If any person makes any claim in respect of the property attached, then the ownership of such property shall be determined by the Magistrate who issued the warrant, or his successor in office or the Magistrate in charge of the accounts. The services of a junior Deputy Magistrate or Sub-Deputy Magistrate or Circle Officer may be utilised, if necessary, for the investigation of such claims. It was thus incumbent upon the learned Magistrate to make an enquiry into the claim put forward by the petitioner. The services of a junior Deputy Magistrate or Sub-Deputy Magistrate or Circle Officer may be utilised, if necessary, for the investigation of such claims. It was thus incumbent upon the learned Magistrate to make an enquiry into the claim put forward by the petitioner. Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 83 makes it clear that only movable and not immovable property can be attached in execution of a warrant issued under that clause. If the Magistrate were to find that any property attached in execution of a warrant issued by him was immovable property at the time of the attachment, he cannot have any option but to release such properties from attachment. In so far as those properties are concerned which were movable properties at the time of attachment, he must decide the claim of the petitioner, and. if he comes to the conclusion that they belong to him and not to the offender, he cannot but release those properties also from attachment. 2. In view of what I have said above, it is clear that the learned Magistrates order is illegal. The application is, therefore, allowed, and the order is set aside. The Magistrate will make an enquiry and dispose of the petitioners claim in accordance with law and in the light of the observations which I have made over.