C M CHOWDHARY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision. It raises the question as to whether the release of the property attached Under Section 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could be withheld. A case was launched against the applicant Under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Section 409 and certain other sections of the IPC. A proclamation was drawn out by the Magistrate on 6-11-1952 purporting to be one Under Section 87 of the Code of Criminal Procedure setting out that the court had reason to believe that the applicant was absconding or concealing himself and requiring him to appear "forthwith" be fore the Magistrate. Simultaneously with that order, attachment of certain movable property of the applicant was made. The applicant was later on arrested and tried; and I am told that it has ended in his conviction from which an appeal has been preferred by him and (sic) pending in this Court. Before the Magistrate the applicant raised objection to the effect that the provisions of Section 87 of the Code were not complied with and the attachment was, therefore, not valid Under Section 88 of the Code and he claimed that the (sic) should be released in his favour. The learned Magistrate rejected that prayer because the prosecution had contended that the property attached would be exhibited in court in order to illustrate that the pecuniary resources of the accused were disproportionate to his known sources of income a fact which could be proved by the prosecution and which would lead the court to presume, unless the contrary was proved that the accused was guilty of criminal misconduct in discharge of his official duty as provided by Sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(2.) Section 87 of the Code of Criminal Procedure authorises the issuing of a proclamation requiring the absconding person:

(3.) The section the provides: