Short Note : 1. The prosecution case, in brief, was that on 29-12-72 the process-server Ramsingh (P.W.1) of the Court of Civil judge Class II, Badnawar went to execute a warrant of attachment of movable property against the judgment-debtor Lalsingh son of Anarji in civil execution case No. 25-B/70-72 It was further alleged by the prosecution that on seeing Ramsingh (P.W.1) coming to his house Lalsingh went away. The respondent Vikramsing was present there. Vikramsingh is the son of Lalsingh. Ramsingh (P.W.1) was accompanied by Parwatsingh, Kanhaiyalal, Imamkhan, Kalusingh and Bharatsingh. Ramsingh attached from the house of Lalsingh five heads of cattle and a cart. When Ramsingh was preparing a supurdnama for entrusting the attached property Vikramsingh came there and by force got the cattle released and threatened to beat Ramsingh by a lathi. Ramsingh went and made a report of the incident to the Civil Judge. The Civil Judge reported the matter to the Police. The police after investigation prosecuted the respondent under section 353 IPC. The accused-respondent denied his guilt. After trial the magistrate found the facts as alleged by the prosecution proved but acquitted the respondent on the ground that the warrant for attachment was not legal. The State has challenged this order of acquittal in this appeal. Held: The learned magistrate has not found that there was any illegality on the fact of the warrant. The learned magistrate observed that it does not appear that any money for maintenance of the cattle was deposited by the decree holder in the Court or' whether any list of property to be attached was furnished by the decree-holder in the Court. The warrant was duly signed by the Civil Judge. The warrant directed attachment of the movable property which may be found in possession of the judgment-debtor. In the circumstances the learned magistrate committed an error in holding that the warrant for attachment was not legal. If there was any irregularity prior to the issuance of the warrant on that ground the warrant cannot be said to be illegal. The learned magistrate was, therefore, not justified in acquitting the respondent on this ground. The prosecution examined Ramsingh (P.W. 1), Bharatsingh (P.W. 4) and Kanhiyalal (P.W. 3) to prove the offence alleged against the respondent. If there was any irregularity prior to the issuance of the warrant on that ground the warrant cannot be said to be illegal. The learned magistrate was, therefore, not justified in acquitting the respondent on this ground. The prosecution examined Ramsingh (P.W. 1), Bharatsingh (P.W. 4) and Kanhiyalal (P.W. 3) to prove the offence alleged against the respondent. Ramsingh (P.W.1) stated that when he went to the house of Lalsingh and attached the property and was writing the supurdnama, the respondent came there and by force took away the property. It was suggested in the cross-examination that Vikramsingh was not the son of Lalsingh; but was the son of Bhanwar Singh. Bharatsingh (P.W. 2) and Kanhaiyalal (P.W.3) are the resident of village Baloda. Ramsingh (P.W. 1) also stated that the respondent was the son of Lalsingh and they were residing in the same house. In the circumstances the offence under section 353, I.P.C. has been proved beyond reasonable doubt against the respondent and the finding given about the same by the learned magistrate is correct. As stated above the learned magistrate committed an error in acquitting the respondent on the ground that the warrant issued by the Civil Judge was illegal. 2. As a result of the discussion aforesaid this appeal is allowed The order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate is set aside and the respondent is convicted of the offence punishable under section 353, IPC and is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- (Rs. five hundred) and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months. Appeal allowed.