JUDGMENT : G.B. Patnaik, J. - Both these appeals are directed against one and the same order dated 9-9-1983 of the Additional District Judge, Cuttack, in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 337-C of 1976, the accused being the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 295 of 1983 and the State being the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 312 of 1913. 2. The Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been instituted against accused Raman Singh u/s 5(l)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act on the allegation that his assets are dispropoaionate to his known sources of income. The properties both moveables and immovables belonging to said Raman Singh were attached pursuant to order dated 29-10-1976 under paragraph 3 of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944. An application was filed by Appellant Raman Singh on 28-7-1982 for lifting the attachment in respect of properties described in Schedule A and B of the said application under paragraph 9 of the Ordinance, inter alia on the grounds that he being an agriculturist the immovable properties described in Schedule A are exempted from attachment u/s 60 of the CPC and further he is in dire need of money for his maintenance and his his insurance policies described in Schedule B should be lifted from attachment. The State was given an opportunity of being heard and the State filed an objection. Another, application was also filed by said Raman Singh on 15-1-1983 for lifting the attachment with respect to same fixed deposits which though matured since 1976 were lying without any interest. After hearing both these applications of Raman Singh and the objector-State, the learned Additional District Judge passed the impugned order dated 9-9-1983 whereunder he released the Life insurance policies described in Schedule B excepting item. No. 1 thereof and rejected the prayer with regard to lifting of attachment so far as immovable properties ale concerned as well as the fixed deposits covered under the application dated 14-7-1983. Raman Singh is the Appellant with respect to that part of the order refusing his prayer to life the attachment with respect to immovable properties as well as the fixed deposits and the State is the Appellant with respect to the part of the order lifting attachment with respect to the life Insurance policies of said Raman Singh. 3. Raman Singh is the Appellant with respect to that part of the order refusing his prayer to life the attachment with respect to immovable properties as well as the fixed deposits and the State is the Appellant with respect to the part of the order lifting attachment with respect to the life Insurance policies of said Raman Singh. 3. So far as State's appeal is concerned, the learned Additional Government Advocate has urged that Section 60 of the CPC is not applicable as the proceeding is a criminal proceeding. The proceeding under the Ordinance is civil in character as has been held in the case of Gostha Behari Seth v. State of Orissa Crl. App. No. 112 of 1981 - D/24-6-1982. The different paragraphs of the Ordinance unequivocally indicate that the proceeding under the Ordinance is civil in nature and the provisions of the CPC apply to the said proceeding. Therefore, the learned Additional District Judge was right in his conclusion that with respect to attachments made under the Ordinance provisions of the CPC would apply. u/s 60(1)(kb) of the Code, the life insurance policies are exempted from attachment. Accordingly, the order of the Additional District Judge releasing the said policies standing in the name of Appellant Raman Singh from attachment is wholly justified and consequently the State's appeal is devoid of any force. 4. So far as the appeal by the accused concerned, it depends upon an interpretation of Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Mr. Mukherjee the learned Counsel for the Appellant, has submitted that the accused must be held to be an agriculturist and therefore, the immovable properties are exempted from the purview of attachment u/s 60(1)(b) and (c) of the Code. There is no material on record on the basis of which the Court can come to a finding that the accused is an 'agriculturist'. Mr. Mukherjee places reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shrimant Appasaheb Tuljaram Desai and Others Vs. Bhalchandra Vithalrao Thube but in my view the said decision has no application in the present case. Even giving the widest connotation to the word "agriculturist", in order to avail the exemption provided for u/s 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the person must prove that he was basically engaged in agricultural operation. Bhalchandra Vithalrao Thube but in my view the said decision has no application in the present case. Even giving the widest connotation to the word "agriculturist", in order to avail the exemption provided for u/s 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the person must prove that he was basically engaged in agricultural operation. The object of the provisions being to save the bonafide agriculturists from undue harassment and for providing them with shelter, the said object will be frustrated if the exemptions are extended to those who might be having some lands but do not take agriculture as their main occupation. In that view of the matter, the order of the Additional District Judge rejecting the prayer of the applicant before him for lifting the attachment with respect to immovable properties on the ground that the applicant is not an agriculturist cannot be said to be illegal in any manner. 5. Mr. Mukherjee has then submitted that the order rejecting the prayer of the Appellant to lift attachment with respect to the fixed deposits is based on errors of record and is unsustainable in law. In the application filed on 15-7-1983, in was averred that two fixed deposits-one in the name of Smt. Deokali Devi, wife of Raman Singh and the other in the name of Bhola Kumar Singh, son of Raman Singh had been attached and were matured since 1976 and lying without interest and those two were necessary for the sustenance of the Appellant. The learned Additional District Judge has rejected this prayer on the ground that the fixed deposits do not stand in the name of the applicant and also the applicant would be getting about Rs. 50,000/- from the life insurance policies. The second ground of rejection may not be correct, inasmuch as though the life insurance policies amount to Rs. 50,000/-, yet most of them have not been matured after full payment, but have been paid up for smaller amounts; Admittedly, one of the fixed deposits stands in the name of Bhola Kumar Singh, son of accused-Appellant Raman Singh and, therefore, the said deposit cannot be lifted from attachment on the application of the Appellant. But the other one stands in the name of Smt. Deokali Devi. But the other one stands in the name of Smt. Deokali Devi. wife of Raman Singh, The Appellant averred in his application and which is not disputed by the Public Prosecutor that his wife died in January, 1981 after prolonged suffering ham cancer. On the death of his wife, the Appellant being husband and his children are entitled to inherit the amount which stood in the name of the deceased wife. In that view of the matter and taking into consideration the circumstances in the which the present Appellant is placed, the order of attachment with respect to F.D.R. No. F/D : LTD 16/43 for Rs. 30,000/- in the name of Smt. Deokali Devi, wife of Raman Singh in the Central Bank of India, Laheria Sarei, Darbhanga (Bihar) is to be lifted and the Appellant along with other legal heirs who are entitled to receive the same subject to the rules and regulations of the Bank may receive the amount after satisfying the Bank authorities all the pre-conditions fixed under the rules and regulations of the Bank. 6. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No. 295 of 1983 is allowed in part to the extent that the order of the Additional District Judge dated 9-9-1983 is set aside so far as it relates to the prayer for lifting the attachment in respect of the fixed deposit of Rs. 30,000/- standing in the name of Smt. Deokali Devi, wife of Raman Singh, and the order of the Additional District Judge with respect to all other prayer is confirmed. Criminal Appeal No. 312 of 1933 filed by the State is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed