Posthumous criminal finding cannot sustain attachment against a deceased accused's estate under the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance.

Attachment proceedings under the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 presuppose a living against whom a scheduled offence is alleged, and cannot be continued against the legal representatives or estate of a deceased accused. The Court also held that an attachment order cannot rest on a criminal finding recorded after the accused's death, because criminal proceedings abate on death and cannot culminate in a valid conviction. A posthumous finding of guilt is void, and the presumption of innocence cannot be displaced by such a finding. The attachment proceedings and orders confirming attachment were therefore invalid and unsustainable, and the impugned orders were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether attachment proceedings under the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 could be sustained against the legal representatives of a deceased accused, and whether an order of attachment could rest on a criminal finding recorded after the accused's death.

Analysis: Clause 3 of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 contemplates an application against a person who is believed to have committed a scheduled offence and presupposes the existence of such person. Clause 4 authorises ad interim attachment on a prima facie basis, while Clause 13 requires withdrawal of attachment where there is acquittal or where cognizance has not been taken. The Court held that the scheme does not permit continuation of attachment proceedings against a dead person, and that the omission to mention abatement cannot justify sustaining an attachment where the prosecution itself cannot culminate in a conviction. A criminal trial cannot continue against a deceased person, and any finding of guilt recorded after death is void and contrary to basic criminal jurisprudence. The presumption of innocence survives until lawful conviction and cannot be destroyed by a posthumous finding.

Conclusion: The attachment proceedings and the orders confirming attachment were invalid and unsustainable; the appeal was allowed and the impugned orders were set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Attachment under the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 cannot be maintained against the estate or legal representatives of a deceased accused on the basis of a posthumous finding of guilt, because criminal proceedings cannot continue against a dead person and the statutory scheme presupposes a living person against whom the alleged offence is attributed.

---