ORDER OZA, J.- l. This revision petition has been field by the petitioner against an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam dated 16-4-1979 in execution of warrant for recovery of fine, 2. The facts necessary for the decision of this revision petition are that the petitioner was convicted by the judgment of the Court of Sessions, Ratlam on 28th February 1974 for an offence under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to four years’ R.I. and fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine it was ordered that he shall suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year. While the petitioner was serving the sentence imposed on him, warrant for recovery of fine was issued and it is not disputed that the last warrant which was issued for recovery of fine was dated 26th December 1975. At that time in execution of that warrant nothing could be recovered and therefore the petitioner remained in custody even after he had served out the substantive sentence and also the sentence of one year which was in default of payment of fine. After he had served out this sentence what happened was that the warrant which was issued on 26th December 1975 was not withdrawn and it remained and ultimately the crops standing on agricultural land sown by the petitioner were attached under that warrant. The petitioner moved an application to the trial court that as he has already served out the sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of fine, the crops which were standing on the field sown by him should not be attached and the amount of fine should not be recovered from him. The learned Additional Sessions Judge by the impugned order held that the warrant was not withdrawn and it was still in force and as that Warrant was issued before the petitioner had served out the sentence in default of payment of fine, it could not be said that the warrant was illegally issued. Learned Judge therefore felt that if in execution of this warrant the crops are attached and sold it could not be said that anything contrary to law is being done. The learned Judge therefore rejected the prayer of the petitioner and it is against this order that the present revision petition has been filed 3. Learned Judge therefore felt that if in execution of this warrant the crops are attached and sold it could not be said that anything contrary to law is being done. The learned Judge therefore rejected the prayer of the petitioner and it is against this order that the present revision petition has been filed 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the language of section 421 of the Code of Criminal Procedure clearly indicates that once an accused has served out the sentence in default of payment of fine, it is not expected that further proceedings for recovery would be taken against him as according to the learned counsel it will amount to double jeopardy. He therefore contended that although technically the warrant was issued on a date when the petitioner had not served out the sentence in default of payment of fine still when the attachment in execution was being effected the petitioner had served out the sentence in default of payment of fine and therefore, further proceedings of attachment and sale could not be effected. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State contended that as the warrant was issued on 26-12-1975 it could not be said to be illegal and consequently the view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Could not be said to be erroneous in law. 5. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State contended that as the warrant was issued on 26-12-1975 it could not be said to be illegal and consequently the view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Could not be said to be erroneous in law. 5. Section 421, sub-clause (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides :- "When an offender has been sentenced to pay a fine, the Court passing the sentence may take action for the recovery of the fine in either or both of the following ways, that is to say, if may- (a) issue a warrant for the levy of the amount by attachment and sale of any movable property belonging to the offender ; (b) issue a warrant to the Collector of the district, authorising him to realise the amount as arrears of land revenue from the movable or immovable property, or both, of the defaulter; Provided that, if the sentence directs that in default of payment of the fine', the off-under shall be imprisoned, and if such of-reader has undergone the whole of such imprisonment in default, no Court shall issue such warrant unless for special reasons to be recorded in writing, it considers It necessary so to do, or unless it has made an order for the payment of expenses or compensation out of the line under section 357." This proviso to sub-clause (1) of section 421 provides that if the offender has• undergone the who of such imprisonment in default of payment of tine, no Court shall issue a warrant for recovery except for special reasons to be recorded in writing. The purpose of this proviso appears to be that if a person is directed to be Imprisoned in default of payment of the fine and he suffers the imprisonment default of payment of fine then ordinarily no recovery proceedings could be taken against him as that would mean that he is not only sentenced to payment of fine but also to a term of imprisonment in default whereas a person is sentenced to payment of fine and it is ordered that in default of payment of fine he will undergo a term of imprisonment, he has to suffer either of the two but not both and in that view it is provided in this proviso that except for special reasons recovery proceedings could not be instituted against a person who has served out the sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of fine: The language used in the proviso is that 'no Court shall issue such a warrant' but it does not mean that the date of the warrant is material. The purpose appears to be that no recovery proceedings shall be taken after the term of imprisonment is served out which was in default of payment of fine, The learned Additional Sessions Judge probably felt that as the date on which the warrant for recovery was issued was the date when the petitioner had not served the sentence in default of payment of fine, the warrant could still be executed; but such a technical interpretation is not of much value as it is apparent that the language of the proviso clearly provides that a person cannot be punished twice for the same act. In this view of the matter there fore the view taken by the learned Court below does not appear to be justified. It is not disputed that the petitioner has served out the complete sentence which he was to undergo in default of payment of fine. Consequently the recovery proceedings against the petitioner after he has served out the sentence which he was to undergo in default of payment of fine could not be proceeded. 6. The revision petition is therefore allowed. The order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam is set aside and it is directed that the recovery proceedings against the petitioner and attachment shall be quashed.