Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the proclamation issued under Section 87 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was valid, and whether the attachment of the petitioner's property could be sustained when the proclamation did not comply with the mandatory requirements of law.
Analysis: The mandatory requirements of Section 87 were held to include specification of a time not less than 30 days from the date of publication, due publication in the prescribed manner, and proper recording of publication by the Court. The proclamation in the present case fixed no precise date, referred incorrectly to 30 days from the date of issue rather than publication, and was not shown to have been publicly read or affixed at the court-house. In the absence of compliance with these requirements, the proclamation was invalid and no presumption of due publication arose. Since the attachment depended entirely on the validity of the proclamation, the attachment could not survive once the proclamation was held to be a nullity.
Conclusion: The proclamation was invalid and void, and the attachment of the cattle was illegal and unsustainable; the attached property was directed to be restored to the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute makes a proclamation a condition precedent for attachment, strict compliance with the prescribed time and mode of publication is mandatory, and non-compliance renders the proclamation void and any consequential attachment unlawful.