JUDGMENT : K.B.N. Singh, J. Criminal Reference No. 116 of 1967 has been made by the First Additional Sessions Judge of Monghyr for setting aside the ORDER :of Shree M. P. Gupta, Munsif Magistrate, dated the 4th January, 1965, ORDER :ing two separate trials to proceed against the accused Tunki Singh and five others. The criminal revision has also been filed by Tunki Singh and five others, who are accused in the two criminal cases, for setting aside the aforesaid ORDER :of the Munsif Magistrate and for quashing the certificate proceedings against the petitioners. As the reference and the revision relate to the same matter, they are being disposed of by a common JUDGMENT :. 2. Three requisitions for starting certificate proceedings under the Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) were made by the Anchal Adhikari, Sikandra, for realisation of arrears of rent against the petitioners and others. The certificate cases, nos. 3, 7 and 13 of 1961-62, were started. On the 29th April, 1961, the Certificate Officer issued distress warrants under Section 14, along with notices under Section 7 of the Act and the processes were entrusted to Arjun Misra and Sarfuddin, two peons for execution. These peons, accompanied by the Circle Inspector, a Karamchari and Tahsildar, visited the house of the certificate debtors on the 3rd May, 1961, for execution of the processes. The petitioners are alleged to have obstructed the execution of the processes and threatened the peons with dire consequences, if the movables, i.e., cattle etc. of the certificate-debtors were attached. As a result of this, the peons did not execute the processes and reported the matter to the Certificate Officer, under whose direction, they filed petitions of complaint before the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Jamui, for the offences alleged. The Sub-divisional Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Cede, and two cases were started against the petitioners, which are now pending before the aforesaid Munsif Magistrate. 3. In both the cases charges under Sections 186 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code were framed on the 9th November, 1961, against the petitioners, against which they moved this Court in Criminal Revision Nos. 1094 and 1153 of 1962. 3. In both the cases charges under Sections 186 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code were framed on the 9th November, 1961, against the petitioners, against which they moved this Court in Criminal Revision Nos. 1094 and 1153 of 1962. Those revision petitions were dismissed with the following observations by this Court:- The trial court can decide the preliminary points raised on behalf of the petitioners which are substantial in nature before proceeding with the hearing of the cases. If the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners be true, then, Certainly, it will be a case of unnecessary harassment to them." Accordingly, the objection of the petitioners regarding the maintainability of the prosecution against them was considered as preliminary issue and rejected by the learned Munsif Magistrate by his ORDER :dated the 4th January, 1965. It is against this ORDER :, as already stated, that the reference has been made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, at the instance of the petitioners. 4. It appears that the main grounds urged on behalf of the petitioners for dropping and quashing the prosecution against them were that (1) the certificates were issued ignoring payments already made by the petitioners, (2) the certificates were issued for amounts in excess of the actual dues against the petitioners, ignoring the reduction of rent in question made under Section 112A of the Bihar Tenancy Act, and (3) the ORDER :of the Certificate Officer issuing distress warrants along with the notices under Section 7 of the Act was illegal and without jurisdiction. 5. On the first two grounds, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has observed that there was no remission of rent under Section 112A of the Bihar Tenancy Act for the year in question for which the certificates were issued and that the petitioners also failed to show that certificates were issued ignoring payments already made. It is on the last ground that the reference has been made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for quashing the ORDER :. 6. It will be relevant to refer to some of the provisions of Part II of the Act dealing with the filing, service and effect of certificates and hearing of objections thereto. Section 4 provides for filing of certificate for public demand payable to the Collector, while Section 5 deals with requisition for certificate in other cases. 6. It will be relevant to refer to some of the provisions of Part II of the Act dealing with the filing, service and effect of certificates and hearing of objections thereto. Section 4 provides for filing of certificate for public demand payable to the Collector, while Section 5 deals with requisition for certificate in other cases. Section 6 lays down that on receipt of a requisition the Certificate Officer, if he is satisfied that the demand is recoverable and the recovery by suit is not barred by law, will sign a certificate in the prescribed form, stating that the demand is due, and shall cause the certificate to be filed in his office. Thereafter the Certificate Officer shall cause a notice to be served upon the certificate-debtor in the prescribed manner and the prescribed form with a copy of the certificate. Section 8 deals with the effect of the service of the notice under Section 7 of the Act, which prohibits the certificate debtor from transferring any of his immovable properties and also speaks of creation of certain charge on the certificate-debtor's properties. Section 9 lays down that within thirty days from the service of the notices, the certificate-debtor can file a petition denying his liability in whole or in part. Section 10 deals with the hearing and determination of such petition. Section 11 provides that subject to the law of limitation, the certificate can be amended by addition and omission and parties can also be substituted. Thereafter comes Part III of the Act, dealing with the execution of the certificates. Section 10 deals with the hearing and determination of such petition. Section 11 provides that subject to the law of limitation, the certificate can be amended by addition and omission and parties can also be substituted. Thereafter comes Part III of the Act, dealing with the execution of the certificates. It will be relevant to refer to Section 14 of the Act (in Part III) with which we are concerned in the instant case : "No step in execution of a certificate shall be taken until the period of thirty days has elapsed since the date of the service of the notice required by Sections 7 and 11, or, when a petition has been duly filed under Section 9, until such petition has been heard and determined; Provided that, if the Certificate Officer in whose office a certificate is filed is satisfied that the certificate debtor is likely to conceal, remove or dispose of the whole or any part of such of his movable property as is liable to attachment under this Act, and that the realisation of the amount of the certificate would in consequence be delayed or obstructed, he may at any time direct, for reasons to be recorded to writing, an attachment of the whole or any part of such movable property." From the provisions of Section 14 it is apparent that this section prohibits any steps for execution of a certificate to be taken until the period of thirty days has elapsed after the service of notice under Section 7 of the Act or after 30 days from the amendment as provided under Section 11. It further lays down that if any objection petition is filed under Section 9, then, steps for execution of the certificate shall not be taken till the disposal of the objection petition. But, the aforesaid provision is subject to the proviso to the above section that if the Certificate Officer is satisfied that the certificate-debtor is likely to conceal, remove or dispose of his properties liable to attachment, which will delay or obstruct the execution of the certificate, then, for reasons to be recorded in writing, he may at any time direct attachment of the whole or part of such movable property. 7. Mr. 7. Mr. K. K. Sinha has pointed out that in the instant case, as mentioned in the letter of reference, the Certificate Officer has issued attachment of the movables of the petitioners along with the notice under Section 7 of the Act, without there being any reason for his being satisfied for taking this step. The reason recorded by the Certificate Office for issuing simultaneous attachment of the movable properties of the petitioners along with the notice under Section 7 is no reason at all. That being the position, obstruction, if any, to an illegal ORDER :of attachment, could not be an offence under Section 186 or Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code, for which the petitioners are being prosecuted. I think, there is substance in this submission of the learned counsel. 8. It will be necessary in this connection to refer to the ORDER :of the Certificate Officer, which is in the following terms : "Enter in Register. Perused the requisition. File Certificate. There is a general tendency among the certificate-debtors to evade payment of certificate dues. In this case I am satisfied that the C.D. is likely to conceal, remove, or dispose of such his movable properties as -are "liable to attachment under the P.D.R. Act and that the realisation of the certificate amount would in consequence be delayed or obstructed. In exercise of the power vested in me u/s 4 of the said Act, I, therefore, direct that D. V. will issue along with notice u/s 7 of the said Act returnable by 29-5-61." From the aforesaid ORDER :it is apparent that the only ground which impelled the Certificate Officer to issue simultaneous attachment is the "general tendency among the certificate-debtors to evade payment of the certificate dues." This obviously is not the satisfaction of the Certificate Officer as contemplated under Section 14 of the Act to issue attachment simultaneously with the notice under Section 7. The ORDER :in question, which is a cyclostyled ORDER :sheet signed by the Certificate Officer, in all the three certificate proceedings, does not show that the Certificate Officer applied his mind to the case of these petitioners and that the grounds on which the attachment could issue as provided in the proviso to Section 14 of the Act existed in the instant case. That obviously not having done the Certificate Officer had no jurisdiction to issue simultaneous attachment, which is forbidden under Section 14 of the Act itself. Recording of the reasons under the proviso to Section 14 is not a mere formality, but it is a condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction under the proviso for issuing simultaneous attachment with the notice under Section 7 of the Act. It is apparent that, that not having been done the Certificate Officer had no jurisdiction to simultaneously issue attachment in the instant case and the petitioners cannot be said to have committed any offence in disobeying such an illegal attachment ORDER :of the Certificate Officer. The view I have taken gains support from the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of (1) Collector of Monghyr V. Keshav Prasad Goenka and others (A.I.R. 1962 Supreme Court 1694). That was, of course, a case under the Bihar Private Irrigation Works Act, which requires the Collector to assign reasons for taking up an emergency scheme, wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed that if the reasons recorded for taking up an emergency scheme were totally irrelevant as a justification for an ORDER :of taking up a scheme of irrigation as an emergency scheme, the exercise of such power under Section 5A of the Bihar Private Irrigation Act was void and not justified by the statute. The provision for recording of reasons being the only protection against the exercise of extraordinary powers under the Act, the reasons must have co-relation with the facts of the case in which this extraordinary power is sought to be used. From the aforesaid discussions it is apparent that the prosecution of the petitioners is misconceived and it will be an abuse of the processes of the Court to allow it to continue. 9. In the result, the reference is accepted and the ORDER :of the learned Magistrate dated the 4th January, 1965, ORDER :ing the trial of the petitioners to proceed is set aside and the proceedings against them are quashed. 10. The criminal reference having been accepted, the criminal revision, in so far as it seeks to set aside the ORDER :of the learned Magistrate dated the 4th January, 1965, is also allowed. There is also a prayer in the criminal revision for quashing the certificate proceedings against the petitioners. 10. The criminal reference having been accepted, the criminal revision, in so far as it seeks to set aside the ORDER :of the learned Magistrate dated the 4th January, 1965, is also allowed. There is also a prayer in the criminal revision for quashing the certificate proceedings against the petitioners. This prayer, obviously, cannot be allowed and, in fact, no argument has been advanced before me for allowing that prayer. The prayer for quashing the certificate proceedings pending against the petitioners is accordingly rejected. 11. During the pendency of these cases, the petitioners have deposited Rs. 1100/- towards the satisfaction of the certificate dues, vide challan no. 1316 dated the 4th February, 1969, without prejudice to their right. That amount is to be made available to the Certificate Officer for adjustment towards the certificate dues in the certificate proceedings against the petitioners. The Certificate Officer will now proceed to dispose of the certificate proceedings according to law, which have remained pending so long. The records of the certificate proceedings, which were called for, should be sent back to the Certificate Officer concerned without delay. Reference allowed and revision allowed in part