JUDGMENT 1. - The accused-appellant has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Merta under Section 333 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo two year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further suffer six months, rigorous imprisonment. The period of imprisonment from 27-11-1975 to 22-7-1976 has been allowed to be set off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the accused has been ordered to undergo the remaining sentence awarded by the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge has also ordered that out of the fine, a sum of Rs. 800/-, shall be paid to injured Bhanwarsingh PW 7 as compensation. 2. In short, the case of the prosecution is this : in Civil Suit No. 19 of 1974, Bhanwarlal v. Prabhuram , a decree for a sum of Rs. 1067.50 p. was passed in favour of Bhanwarlal and against the accused appellant. Bhanwarlal, the decree holder, filed an execution application for the execution of the money decree and the learned Executing Court (Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Parbatsar) issued a warrant of attachment (Ex.PI) under O XXI, rule 31, C.P.C. for an attachment of the moveable property. Gulabkhan PW 6 was the Nazir attached to the Court and Ex.PI was handed over to him for execution. Gulabkhan took police help and also took the orders of the learned Munsif to take Bhanwarsingh PW 7 with him for assistance. Gulabkhan PW 6 accompanied by Bhanwarsihgh PW 7, Pusaram PW 1 son of Bhanwarlal the decree-holder, Najir PW 2, Prem Chand constable PW 3 and Premraj PW 4 went to the village of the accused appellant for effecting attachment of the move ables. The accused appellant was present at his house and it is alleged that a she-buffalo and two `Padis' were attached. A seizure memo was prepared and when Gulab Khan PW 6 asked Bhanwarsingh PW 7 to take the attached property, it is alleged that the accused appellant gave a blow by lathi to Bhanwarsingh PW 7 as result of which, he received grievous injury. It was also alleged that Prabhuram also caused injuries. A report of the incident was lodged by Gulab Khan in police station Gachhipura. A case was registered and investigation was set in motion. 3. Bhanwarsingh PW 7 was sent for medical examination and PW 5 Dr. It was also alleged that Prabhuram also caused injuries. A report of the incident was lodged by Gulab Khan in police station Gachhipura. A case was registered and investigation was set in motion. 3. Bhanwarsingh PW 7 was sent for medical examination and PW 5 Dr. Ranulal examined the injuries of Bhanwarsingh PW 7 and found swelling 3" x 2" on the middle of left forearm. The injury was grievous and caused by blunt weapon within a duration of 24 to 48 hours. Dr. Ranulal advised for x-ray for confirmation of his opinion and Dr. D.K. Gupta, who was Radiologist, Jawahar Lal Nehru Hospital, Ajmer, took the skiagram of Bhanwarsingh PW 7. The x-ray report revealed a fracture of mid-shaft of left radius and ulna. 4. The accused along with Prabhuram was tried by the learned Sessions Judge Merta. The plea of the accused was of bare denial. So far as the injury to Bhanwarsingh is concerned, the accused set up a case that Bhanwarsingh had come with a lathi to his house and wanted to take away the she-buffalo but he asked him not to do so but Bhanwarsingh did not pay any heed and when he was going to take away the she-buffalo, he (the appellant) pushed him as a result of which, Bhanwarsingh received the injury. The accused examined Hukmaram DW 1 in defence. The learned Sessions Judge, placing reliance on the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as aforesaid but the co-accused Prabhuram was acquitted. 5. The contention of the learned advocate for the accused appellant is that the attachment of the she-buffaloes was not in accordance with law and, therefore, when Bhawarsingh wanted to take away the she buffaloes without any authority, the accused had a right of private defence of his property and even if he caused injury to Bhanwarsingh PW 7, the accused did not commit any offence. It is also contended that at the time when the beating is alleged to have administered to Bhanwarsingh PW 7, said Bhanwarsingh was not discharging his duties as a public servant and as such, no offence under Section 333 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. 6. It is also contended that at the time when the beating is alleged to have administered to Bhanwarsingh PW 7, said Bhanwarsingh was not discharging his duties as a public servant and as such, no offence under Section 333 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. 6. It cannot be any longer disputed that there was a money-decree against the accused appellant and in favour of Bhanwarlal and on an execution application No. 9 of 1975 having been filled for the execution of the said decree, a warrant of attachment of moveable property under O. XXI, rule 40,C.P.C. (Ex.PI) was issued by the court on November 20, 1975.Under the aforesaid warrant, Gulabkhan PW 6, the Assistant Nazir of the Court was asked to go on the spot and attach the move able property as may be pointed out by the decree-holder. Bhanwarsingh PW 7 was Process Server attached to the court of Munsif, Parbatsar Ex.P5 is the order of the learned Munsif permitting Gulabkhan to take Bhanwrsingh PW 7 for assistance. It bears the signatures of the learned Munsif. Thus, it can be said that Bhanwarsingh PW 7 accompanied Gulabkhan PW 6 as Ex.P 1, the warrant of attachment of moveable property was to be executed. 7. It was a part of the duties of the Nazir, Gulabkhan PW 6 and Bhanwarsingh PW 7, the process server, to execute the warrant Ex. PI and in execution of it, to jattach the move able property of the judgment-debtor. Under O. XXI, r. 43, Cr. PC., the attachment of move able property, other than agricultural procedure, in the possession of the judgment debtor has to be made by actual seizure and thereafter, the attaching officer has to keep the property in his custody or in the custody of any one of his subordinates and has to be responsible for the due custody thereof. Though under law a memo of seizure of the property attached is not required but a memo is always prepared and it evidences what actually transpires at the time of attachment. Thus, whether the she-buffaloes were actually seized by Gulabkhan PW 6 or Bhanwarsingh PW 7, who was assisting him before the memo Ex. P2 was prepared or it was prepared after the incident, would not make any difference. Thus, whether the she-buffaloes were actually seized by Gulabkhan PW 6 or Bhanwarsingh PW 7, who was assisting him before the memo Ex. P2 was prepared or it was prepared after the incident, would not make any difference. An irregularity in executing a warrant of attachment of move able property, even if there is any, does not entitled the accused to use force against public servant who is discharging his official duties. When at the instance of Gulabkhan PW 6, Bhanwarsingh PW 7 was seizing the she buffaloes, was bringing them out from the house of the accused, Bhanwarsingh PW 7 was discharging his official duties and the accused, in order to prevent Bhanwarsingh, a public servant, from discharging his duties, namely, attaching the move able property, that is, the she-buffaloes and keep them in his custody, assaulted him. 8. There is sufficient material on record that the accused is the author of the injury to Bhanwarsingh PW 7. Bhanwarsingh has clearly stated that Gulabkhan gave out that he had to attach the she-buffaloes. Gulabkhan asked the accused to furnish security which he failed to do Gulabkhan directed Bhanwarsingh to take away the she-buffaloes from the `Bara' where they were tried. When Bhanwarsingh was doing so, the accused gave a lathi blow to him as a result of which, there was fracture of the bone of the hand. He is corroborated by the statement of Gulabkhan PW 6, the Assistant Nazir who states that after he had prepared Ex. P/2, he directed Bhanwarsingh to bring the she-buffaloes from the Bara and when Bhanwarsingh did so, the accused gave a lathi blow to him on his left hand. PW 1 Pusaram, who is the son of the decree-holder, also states that when Bhanwarsingh, on the orders of Gulabkhan was bringing the she-buffaloes from the `Bara', the accused gave lathi blow to Bhanwar Singh as a result of which, there was fracture of the bone. The two motbirs Najir PW 2 and Premraj PW 4 have also supported their statements. PW 3 Premsingh was a police constable who was taken by the Nazir with him from the outpost to assist him in the execution of the warrant, states that when memo had been prepared, Gulabkhan directed Bhanwarsingh to go inside the `Bara' and to bring the she-buffaloes. When Bhanwarsingh did so, the accused gave lathi blow on his hand. PW 3 Premsingh was a police constable who was taken by the Nazir with him from the outpost to assist him in the execution of the warrant, states that when memo had been prepared, Gulabkhan directed Bhanwarsingh to go inside the `Bara' and to bring the she-buffaloes. When Bhanwarsingh did so, the accused gave lathi blow on his hand. Thus, there is sufficient material on record that it was the accused who gave a lathi blow to Bhanwarsingh to prevent him from discharging his public duties. The statements of the other witnesses are further corroborated by PW 5 Dr. Ranulal who examined the injury on the person of Bhanwarsingh PW 7. Dr. D.K. Gupta, on x-ray, found that there was a fracture. Thus, the injury of Bhanwarsingh was confirmed to be a grievous injury. 9. The defence of the accused was that Bhanwarsingh PW 7 had come with a lathi and when he (the accused) pushed Bhanwarsingh, he fell on the ground and received the injury. This defence has not been believed by the trial court and rightly so in view of the overwhelming evidence on record. No doubt in the warrant it is mentioned that such of the property of the judgment-debtor, as shall be pointed by the decree-holder, shall be attached and there is no evidence on record that the decree-holder on his representative Pusaram PW 1 who was his son, pointed out she-buffaloes, as the immovable property to be a attached but Pusaram was present and she-buffaloes also constituted move able property. Thus, the contention of the learned advocate that without the property having been pointed out by the decree-holder, the she-buffaloes could not have been attached, has no force. 10. It is contended by the learned advocate that the case should be dealt with either under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders' Act, 1956 as the age of the accused, at the time of the occurrence, was below 21 years but the learned Sessions Judge has given his estimated age of the accused as 24 years and the accused gave out his age as 2l years. An offence under Section 333 of the Indian Penal Code is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to ten years and is also liable to fine. There was a decree of a civil court against the accused-appellant. An offence under Section 333 of the Indian Penal Code is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to ten years and is also liable to fine. There was a decree of a civil court against the accused-appellant. The process of the court had been issued for execution of the decree and Bhanwarsingh PW 1 and Gulab Khan PW 6 had gone to discharge their public duties. Thus, instead of co-operating with them, and giving respect to the process of the court, the accused not only obstructed in the discharge of their duties, but also caused a grievous injury to the process server Bhanwarsingh PW 7. Thus, the circumstances in which the offence is committed by the accused, are not such that the case of the accused should be dealt with under either of the aforesaid provisions. The sentence, in my opinion, is excessive, the occurrence having taken place in the year 1975. 11. In the result, I partly allow the appeal. So far as the conviction of the accused appellant under Section 333 IPC is concerned, it is maintained but the sentence is reduced to one years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer further fifteen days' simple imprisonment. The accused is on bail. He shall surrender to his bail bonds forthwith failing which, the trial court shall take steps to apprehend the accused so that he serves out the sentence awarded to him or any remaining part thereof.Appeal Partly allowed. *******