1. The previous proceeding’s show that the attachment was set aside first by the Magistrate and at all events by this Court on the report of the Sessions Judge on 1st August, 1908, and the goods released. The liability of the petitioner is Conditional clearly on the attachment being maintained. He had custody of the property as attached property, i.e., property which the Committee could sell for realization of their dues. If the attachment falls through, the petitioner’s liability necessarily terminates. It has no independent foundation.
2. I am also inclined to agree with the Sessions Judge that no proceedings under Section 201 for attachment can be taken by the Committee against the accused. I think Din Muhammad v. Municipal Committee; Amritsar 23 P.R. 1903 Cr. shows that under the section claims of this nature, which are hot for any arrears of tax, or fee or for money claimable under the Municipal Act, cannot be realized through the agency of a Magistrate. A fortiori the claim against the petitioner, which can only arise by virtue of an agreement to remain as bailee of property which the Committee had seized in order to recover; certain rents due to them, cannot He so recovered.
3. I set aside the order of the Magistrate directing attachment to issue against the petitioner.