Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

21. The manner for levying fines is provided in Section 421, Cr.P.C. Section 421 reads as follows :-

Warrant for levy of fine; (1) 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, it may-

(a) issue a warrant for the levy of the amount by attachment and sale of any movable property belonging to the offender;

(b) ....

This provision alone would empower the Magistrate to make an order of attachment of salary.

22. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the future accrual of the salary of the husband is not yet a tangible movable properly in his possession and hence it could not be said to be the movable property within the meaning of Section 421, Cr.P.C, According to him, the words "movable property" in Clause (a) of Section 421(1) of Cr.P.C. referred to only tangible movable property which could be seized or attached and which must be belonging to the defaulter.

23. It is further submitted that though movable property is not defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure, the definition is given in Section 22 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 22 of I.P.C. contains the definition of 'movable property' and reads.

67. Mr. A. Packiaraj, Amicus Curiae appointed by this Court, requests this Court to look into the matter from yet another angle. According to him, the impugned order issuing warrants of attachment of salary for future maintenance would be well within the power as per Sections 128 and 431, Cr.P.C. It is submitted that the reading of the relevant sections under Chapter IX, Cr.P.C. would give a clue that the Court, can straightway pass an order of enforcing the future maintenance as well even without resorting to Sections 125(3) and 421, Cr.P.C.

77. In view of this, if any money payable by the order of the Magistrate to the wife, in the absence of mode of recovery for collection on future maintenance, the Magistrate is well within the power to pass an order directing the warrant of attachment of salary under Section 431 of Cr.P.C, even without the help of Sections 125(3) and 421, Cr.P.C.

78. The above contention elaborately put forward by Mr. A Packiaraj, Amicus Curiae, appears to me to be with some force. However, I do not propose to pronounce finally upon this contention, because I have held in ealier paragraphs that the impugned order can be passed in the facts and circumstances of the case even under Sections 125(3) and 421, Cr.P.C.