TMI Blog1995 (9) TMI 402X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... but by order dated 24.4.1995 the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, rejected her prayer for release of the same. Being aggrieved the petitioner filed a revision against the said order and the learned Judicial Commissioner Ranchi, by his order dated 4.5.1995, after setting aside the order of the C.J.M. remitted the matter with a direction to hold an enquiry and to pass a fresh order. The aforesaid orders are Annexures-1 and 2 respectively. The C.J.M., directed an enquiry to be held by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class and on 6.7.1995 the learned Judicial Magistrate, after holding an enquiry, came to the finding that the petitioner was the owner of the seized properties. He directed the opposite party No. 2 to release the seized articles in favour of the petitioner and a copy of the order was also sent to the S.S.P. Ranchi. However, it appears that after receiving the said enquiry report of the Judicial Magistrate the matter was re-considered by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and by impugned order dated 14.8.1995, he has refused to release the seized articles to the petitioner. 3. Mr. A. K. Sinha, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner strongly contended ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t or otherwise, that the person in relation to whom the proclamation is to be issued:- (a) is about to dispose the whole or any part of his property. OR (b) is about to remove the whole or any part of his property from the local jurisdiction of the Court, it may order the attachment simultaneously with the issue of the proclamation. 6. The provisions of Section 83 of the Act, it appears, had been enacted for the express purpose of compelling an accused to appear in obedience of a summons or warrant issued by a criminal court and this is a penalty which is sought to be enforced against him to coerce to respondent to the orders of the Criminal Court and take his trial and not avoid the reach of justice. For this reason the property, which is attached is the property of the accused. 7. It appears that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate initially passed an order on 24.4.1995 without holding any enquiry refusing to release the properties to the petitioner. The Revisional Court set aside the order and remitted the case to him with a direction to hold an enquiry. Inquiry was held by the Judicial Magistrate in compliance of the order of the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd that he is concerned with the question of possession only. The word 'interest' in Sub-section(6A) is a word of wider import and cannot be limited to mere claim of possession. 9. Section 83 as noticed above, contemplates that both movable or immovable properties can be attached, which belongs to be a 'proclaimed person'. The word 'belonging to the proclaimed person', in my opinion cannot be given wider sense by including the property of the family members also. The meaning of word 'belonging' has been given by the Supreme Court as lawful dominion. However, this word was interpreted by the Apex Court while deciding a case of Wealth Tax reported in Nowal Sumir Osman Ali Khan v. CWT . 10. After careful consideration of different provisions, I am of the opinion that for the fault of Ashok Soni, the property of the petitioner could not have been seized. This was done by the opposite party No. 2 in utter violation of the mandate of the Code and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate erred in law in not appreciating this aspect of the matter. My aforesaid view finds support from the case of Baleshwar Singh v. The State of Bihar reported ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icial Magistrate, about deliberate negligence on the part of a Police Officer. 14. Recently in the case of Umesh Prasad v. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 1995 (2) All. PLR 575 this Court, under similar circumstances, has directed the concerned officer-in-charge to pay compensation from his own pocket. His Lordship, while interpreting Section 25 of the Police Manual 1978, has held that it is obligatory on the part of Police officials to furnish an inventory of seized articles to the Magistrate of the district without any delay. 15. It appears from the counter-affidavit of the opposite party No. 2, the present officer incharge of Argora P.S., that one Sri M.K. Srivastava was posted as Officer Incharge of the said Police Station at the relevant time. The present Officer-in-charge has joined there on 25.8.1995. Under this circumstances, it is clear that the said Sri Srivastava failed to comply with, not only the mandatory provisions as laid down in the Police Manual but also directions of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, as well as the Judicial Magistrate and this cannot be appreciated by this Court. No explanation, whatsoever, has been given as to why the inventor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
