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 an application to lift attachment of property made pursuant to proclamation proceedings under the Code of Criminal Procedure is barred merely because it is filed after two years from the date of attachment, and whether the trial court was justified in refusing to examine the request on merits.
Analysis: The attachment under the proclamation provisions is meant to secure the presence of an absconding accused, and Sections 83, 84 and 85 of the Code operate together as a connected scheme. The two-year period in Section 85(3) cannot be treated as an absolute bar so as to deny judicial consideration in every belated case. If the person concerned is able to explain the delay and satisfy the Court that there was no wanton absconding or concealment, the Court retains power to consider the request for release of the attached property on merits. The view that the Court becomes powerless after two years, or that the party must necessarily pursue an executive or civil remedy, was held to be unsound.
Conclusion: The refusal to consider the application solely on the ground of lapse of two years was not sustainable, and the petitioner was entitled to place the matter again before the trial court with supporting particulars.