Order.- These six Criminal Revision Petitions arise out of the orders of even date 18th July, 1977 made by the Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, First Class (II Court) at Raichur, directing the issue of distraint warrant against the petitioner Fakirchand on an application made by the respondent-Commercial Tax Officer, II Circle, Raichur, under section 13(3)(b) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (briefly called the ‘Act’). 2. The few facts relevant for the disposal of these petitions are these: The revision petitioner is a partner of two firms Messrs. Jesraj Amarchand and Messrs. Dalichand Jesraj. The respondent-Commercial Tax Officer has assessed both the firms for sales tax for different years. The assessee failed to pay the assessment in spite of issue of notice of final assessment and demand. So, the respondent approached the Magistrate under section 13(3)(b) of the Act for recovery of the sales tax due as if it were a fine imposed by the Magistrate. Some of the partners of the firms have filed two suits O.S.Nos. 18 and 20 of 1977 on the file of the Civil Judge at Raichur and obtained an interim injunction against the respondent and the State of Karnataka from proceeding with recovery of the sales tax due from them till the disposal of the respective suits under the assessment order made against the firm. The petitioner herein who is common in all the petitions, is also made a defendant in both the suits. After the interim injunction order was made by the learned Civil Judge, the respondent herein made an application to the Magistrate requesting him to recover the arrears of sales tax from the petitioner who is, admittedly, one of the partners of both the firms. The petitioner filed objections opposing the relief sought against him. The learned Magistrate, after hearing both sides, made the impugned orders overruling the objections raised. The petitioner has come up with these revision petitions challenging the correctness of the order of even date 18th July, 1977 made by the learned Magistrate. 3. Since the question involved in all these criminal revision petitions being the same, I shall proceed to dispose them by this common order. 4. Shri M.M. Jagirdar, learned Advocate appearing for the revision petitioner, has raised several contentions. 3. Since the question involved in all these criminal revision petitions being the same, I shall proceed to dispose them by this common order. 4. Shri M.M. Jagirdar, learned Advocate appearing for the revision petitioner, has raised several contentions. His first contention was that since the assessees are the firms, all the partners of the firms should have been made parties to the petitions filed by the respondent for recovery of the arrears of sales tax, and therefore, the action of the respondent in proceeding against the petitioner alone is unsustainable in law. This contention is not tenable for the simple reason that the respondent has filed the application before the Magistrate against the firm as well as all the partners thereof in the first instance. In view of the fact that some of the partners of the firm approached the civil Court and obtained interim injunction restraining the respondent from proceeding against them for the recovery of the tax assessed, the respondent has filed one more petition on 25th June, 1977 requesting the Magistrate to recover the arrears of sales tax from the petitioner herein stating the reasons therefor. It cannot be said that this petition is an independent petition filed under section 13(3)(b) of the Act, for the recovery of the tax due from the petitioner alone. It is only -a continuation of the original petition bringing to the notice of the Court below the change in the circumstances that made the respondent to restrict his claim for the recovery of the tax due from the petitioner alone as the liability of the partners for payment of tax assessed against the firm is joint and several. 5. The second contention urged by Shri M.M. Jagirdar, for the petitioner was that the order of issue of distraint warrant against the petitioner is not in conformity with section 421 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’) as it is the provision under which the Magistrate has to proceed for the recovery of the tax due. He has also contended that the impugned orders are defective as they are not based on the assessment orders made by the respondent. It is seen from the records that the respondent has not produced the assessment orders on which he based his relief for the recovery of the. Tax due. He has also contended that the impugned orders are defective as they are not based on the assessment orders made by the respondent. It is seen from the records that the respondent has not produced the assessment orders on which he based his relief for the recovery of the. Tax due. What was produced before the Court below is the notice of final assessment and the demand. The order of issue of distraint warrant against the petitioner reads as follows: “So issue D|W against Fakirchand only as prayed for and await execution by 23rd July, 1977.” 6. If is provided under section 421 of the Code that a Magistrate cm proceed to take action for the recovery of the fine in either or both ways referred to therein. The two ways referred under section 421 (1) of the Code are: (1) issue of warrant for the levy of the amount by attachment and sale of any moveable property belonging to the offender; and (2) issue of warrant to the Collector of the District, authorising him to realise the amount as arrears of land revenue from the moveable or immovable property, or both, of the defaulter. It is seen from the order made by the learned Magistrate directing issue of the distraint warrant that he has not kept in view the procedure prescribed under section 421(1) of the Code for recovery of the tax due. A similar question came up for consideration before this Court in Ganesh Narain Hegde v. Commercial Tax Officer, Sirsi and another1. This decision applies to the case on hand on all fours and supports the contention urged by Shri M.M. Jagirdar that the impugned orders cannot be sustained on both the grounds for the failure of the respondent to produce the assessment orders for consideration by the Magistrate and also the issue of distraint warrant against the petitioner without complying with the provisions of section 421(1) of the Code. Therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. In that view, it is unnecessary for me to deal with the other contentions urged by Shri M.M. Jagirdar. 7. In view of the foregoing reasons, I allow all these six revision petitions and set aside the impugned orders, dated 18th July, 1977 passed by the Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate First Class (II Court), Raichur. In that view, it is unnecessary for me to deal with the other contentions urged by Shri M.M. Jagirdar. 7. In view of the foregoing reasons, I allow all these six revision petitions and set aside the impugned orders, dated 18th July, 1977 passed by the Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate First Class (II Court), Raichur. The records are directed to be remitted to the Court of the Magistrate, Raichur, for disposal of the proceedings according to law bearing in mind the observations made in the body of this order.