Attachment of third-party property and delayed seizure inventory were held unlawful in proclamation proceedings.

Property may be attached in proclamation proceedings only if it belongs to the proclaimed person; property proved to belong to a third party or family member cannot be brought within Section 83 merely because the proclaimed person resides there. On the facts stated, the claimant established ownership and no evidence showed any interest of the proclaimed person, so attachment and refusal to release the seized articles were illegal. The police were also under a mandatory duty to forward the seizure inventory to the Magistrate without delay, and repeated non-compliance without explanation amounted to breach of duty. The application was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, release of the seized articles was directed, and compensation was awarded.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether property belonging to a person other than the proclaimed person can be attached under the process issued on proclamation. (ii) Whether the police officer was bound to furnish the inventory of seized articles to the Magistrate without delay.

Issue (i): Whether property belonging to a person other than the proclaimed person can be attached under the process issued on proclamation.

Analysis: Section 82 of the Code authorises proclamation against an absconding accused, and Section 83 permits attachment only of property belonging to the proclaimed person. The expression used in Section 83 cannot be enlarged to include property of family members merely because the proclaimed person resides with them. Where the claimant establishes ownership and the opposite side produces no evidence to show any interest of the proclaimed person in the seized property, attachment of the claimant's property is unwarranted.

Conclusion: The attachment and refusal to release the seized articles were illegal and could not be sustained; the petitioner succeeded on this issue.

Issue (ii): Whether the police officer was bound to furnish the inventory of seized articles to the Magistrate without delay.

Analysis: Section 25 of the Bihar Police Manual 1978 made it obligatory for the police to forward the inventory of seized articles to the Magistrate forthwith. The repeated non-compliance with directions of the Magistrate, coupled with the absence of any explanation for withholding the inventory, showed deliberate disregard of the mandatory duty cast on the police authorities.

Conclusion: The police officer was bound to furnish the inventory without delay and failure to do so was a breach of duty; this issue was decided in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The application was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, the seized articles were directed to be released to the petitioner, and compensation was awarded for the illegal and arbitrary police action.

Ratio Decidendi: Property can be attached under proclamation proceedings only if it belongs to the proclaimed person, and police authorities must comply with the mandatory duty to promptly furnish the seizure inventory to the Magistrate.

---