JUDGMENT Mahesh Chandra, J. - This is an application in revision by Harish Kumar, who has been convicted under Sec. 332, I. P. C. and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 60/-. 2. Rs. 2,896.36 nP. as arrears of sales tax were pending against the applicant and recovery certificates of this amount had been pending in Tahsil Sikandrabad itself for about eight or 10 years against the applicant. On the issue of a warrant on 6-12-1962 he deposited Rs. 1,297.97 nP. In spite of several opportunities given to him for depositing the balance he failed to deposit the amount. Twice realisation was stayed under orders of the District Magistrate, but the stay was finally vacated by the District Magistrate on 21-3-1963. A warrant of arrest was issued against the applicant for realisation of the balance of Rs. 1,100/- on 27-3-1963, and Naib Nazir Sikandrabad was asked to execute it. The warrant was served on the applicant at his shop but he could not pay the amount. He was then brought to the Tahsil. The applicant asked Sri Ram Goel Naib Nazir to show the warrant. As soon as it was shown to him the applicant snatched it and tried to gulp it. His hands were caught by the Naib Nazir and the peons. The applicant kicked the peons and also bit the finger of the Naib Nazir. The warrant was, however, snatched back from the applicant, and the applicant having been produced before the Naib Tahsildar was ordered to be locked. 3. The Naib Nazir was examined by the doctor, who deposed that the injury could be caused by a bite. 4. The applicant pleaded not guilty and alleged that he had been implicated at the instance of Sri Ram Goel out of enmity. Two witnesses were examined by him in defence viz. Mithlesh Kumar (D. W. 1) own brother and Panna Lal (D. W. 2). Both the Courts below considered the entire evidence on record and believing the prosecution evidence in preference to the defence evidence convicted the applicant as mentioned above. 5. The first contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the warrant under Sec. 281 of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was illegal. This contention is without force. Both the Courts below considered the entire evidence on record and believing the prosecution evidence in preference to the defence evidence convicted the applicant as mentioned above. 5. The first contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the warrant under Sec. 281 of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was illegal. This contention is without force. Sub-Sec. (8) of Sec. 8 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act provides that any tax or other dues payable to the State Government under the Sales Tax Act or any amount of money which a person is required to pay to the assessing authority under sub-Sec. (3) or for which is personally liable to the assessing authority under sub-Sec. (6) shall be recoverable as arrears of and revenue. Rs. 1,100/- balance of the arrears of sales tax being due from the applicant were under this sub-section recoverable as arrears of land revenue from the applicant. Sec. 279 of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act provides recovery of arrears of land revenue and mentions six processes by which the arrears can be recovered. The second process mentioned in Cl. (b) of Sec. 279 provides for recovery by arrest and detention of the person, Sec. 281 of the Act provides that any person who had defaulted in the payment of an arrear of land revenue may be arrested and detained in custody up to a period not exceeding 15 days unless the arrears with costs, if any, of the arrest and detention were paid. There are provisos to this section. One of them exempts a woman or a minor from lability to arrest or detention. The there proviso exempts a person from arrest or detention for an arrear in respect of a holding of which he is not the bhumidhar or sirdar and says that he should not be arrested merely because of his joint responsibility for payment of land revenue under Sec. 243. In the present case, the arrest was not for an arrear in respect of a holding but for arrears of sales tax, and the liability for realisation of these arrears as land revenue arose because of the provisions of sub-Sec. (8) of Sec. 8 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. In the present case, the arrest was not for an arrear in respect of a holding but for arrears of sales tax, and the liability for realisation of these arrears as land revenue arose because of the provisions of sub-Sec. (8) of Sec. 8 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. In view of the provisions of that section read with Sec. 279 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act the applicant could be arrested under Sec. 281 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, and neither of the provisos of Sec. 281 applied to his case. I agree with the Courts below that the warrant was rightly issued under Sec. 281. 6. It is true that J. Sahai, J. in Padrauna Raj Krishna Sugar Works Ltd. v. Land Reforms Commissioner, 1992 ALJ 616 observed that because of the language of Sec. 279 of the Act the provisions of that Section did not apply in terms to the cases of recovery of miscellaneous dues as arrears of land revenue. But he has explained his remark in the subsequent sentences? by saying that the liability for the recovery of those dues as arrears of land revenue was created by the special Acts under which those amounts were assessed or became due. He went on to say that once a certificate had been sent under Sec. 46(2) of the Act the arrears of income-tax were realisable in the manner provided by the Land Revenue Laws prevailing in the State in which the recovery was to be made. In the present case the arrears of sales tax became realisable as arrears of land revenue under sub-Sec. (8) of Sec. 8 of the Sales Tax Act as already mentioned, and thereafter the provisions of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act became applicable. 7. In the present case the arrears of sales tax became realisable as arrears of land revenue under sub-Sec. (8) of Sec. 8 of the Sales Tax Act as already mentioned, and thereafter the provisions of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act became applicable. 7. The warrant being legal, the action of the applicant in biting the finger of the Naib Nazir was clearly punishable under Sec. 332, I. P. C. So far as the question of fact is concerned, the trial Court has discussed the evidence adduced by the prosecution as well as the defence in detail and the appellate Court has agreed with his assessment of the evidence adduced on both sides .The learned counsel for the applicant has taken me through the relevant pieces of the evidence, because in the judgment of the appellate Court the defence witnesses were not mentioned by name but I see no reason to differ from the assessment of the evidence by the Courts below. D.W. 1 is clearly unreliable being a highly interested witness as brother of the applicant and it is clear, as pointed out by the trial Court, that the defence witnesses, according to their own statements, reached the place after the alleged occurrence had been finished. The act of biting and of kicking the peons took place when the warrant was first demanded by the applicant and then snatched by him from the Naib Nazir and when they tried to save it from being gulped by the applicant. It was when the applicant was being actually put into the lock-up that D. Ws. 1 and 2 are said to have arrived with the money and not when he bit the finger of the Naib Nazir. 8. There is no substance in this application for revision which is accordingly dismissed.