9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to the restoration of attached property under Section 88, Criminal Procedure Code. 2. Validity of the proclamation under Section 87, Criminal Procedure Code. 3. Jurisdiction of the Court under Section 439, Criminal Procedure Code. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Entitlement to the restoration of attached property under Section 88, Criminal Procedure Code: The petitioner sought restoration of his property attached under Section 88 of the Criminal Procedure Code after being acquitted of murder charges. The trial Court and the Additional Sessions Judge denied relief under Section 89, Criminal Procedure Code, stating that the conditions for restoration were not met. The petitioner then filed a revision petition. The Court concluded that the petitioner could not get the attached property restored under Section 89, Criminal Procedure Code, because the conditions laid down in the Section were not satisfied, and the Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to set aside the orders of attachment even if the attachment was irregularly made. 2. Validity of the proclamation under Section 87, Criminal Procedure Code: The main argument was that the proclamation was not published in accordance with Section 87, Criminal Procedure Code, rendering the attachment proceedings under Section 88 invalid. Section 87(1) mandates a written proclamation requiring the person to appear at a specified place and time, not less than thirty days from the date of publishing such proclamation. In this case, the proclamation issued on 13th June 1950 ordered the petitioner to appear "within 30 days from today" and was published on 29th June 1950. This did not comply with the mandatory thirty-day notice period, making the proclamation legally defective. Consequently, the attachment and sale proceedings under Section 88 were deemed invalid. The Court cited precedents, including 'Emperor v Multan Singh' and 'Queen Empress v. Gubbarayar,' to support this view. 3. Jurisdiction of the Court under Section 439, Criminal Procedure Code: The Court considered whether it had the power to set aside the orders under Sections 87 and 88, Criminal Procedure Code, and restore the petitioner's property. The Court held that Section 561-A, Criminal Procedure Code, was not applicable in this case, but the High Court had ample powers under Section 439 to interfere with the orders. The Court set aside the orders passed by the Magistrate under Sections 87 and 88 and directed the restoration of the immovable property and the payment of the sale proceeds of the attached movable property to the petitioner. The judgment emphasized that procedural rules designed to ensure justice must be scrupulously followed, as highlighted by the Supreme Court in 'Ronald Wood Matharas v. State of West Bengal' and the Privy Council in 'Nazir Ahmad v. King-Emperor.' Conclusion: The Court, acting under Section 439, Criminal Procedure Code, set aside the orders of attachment and directed the restoration of the petitioner's property, emphasizing the importance of strict compliance with procedural rules to ensure justice.
|
