STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. ISHWAR PIRAJI KALPATRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the Advocate for the appellant and the respondent in person. Perused the record.

(2.) THIS appeal arises from judgment and order dated 27th October, 1999 passed by the learned Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes at Bombay. The facts in brief relevant for the decision are that pursuant to F. I. R. being lodged of criminal misconduct by the respondent, who was then working as Assistant Commissioner in Greater Bombay, the Home Department of Maharashtra Government by an order dated 28th August, 1998 authorised the appellant No. 2 herein to move for an attachment of the property of the respondent in terms of section 3 (1) of Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 hereinafter called as "the said Ordinance". Pursuant thereto, an application dated 24-4-1989 came to be filed before the learned Chief Judge, Small Causes Court at Bombay and an order of interim attachment came to be passed on the very day i. e. 28th April, 1989 in terms of prayer clause under section 4 (1) of the said Ordinance. The same was registered as A. C. No. 1/1989. The respondent herein filed his reply on 8th September, 1989 and thereafter, presented an application raising various issues objecting the attachment, one of them being that pursuant to the expiry of period of three months from 28th April, 1989 the respondent was entitled for an order of release of attachment. The same was contested by the appellant. However, the learned Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court by the impugned order while rejecting the said contention of the appellant held that in view of expiry of the period of three months from the date of sanction i. e. pursuant to the order of authorisation granted to the appellant No. 2 to move for the attachment of property of the respondent, the interim order granting attachment of the property of the respondent was liable to be set aside and the property to be released. Hence the present appeal.

(3.) UPON hearing the learned Advocate for the appellant and the respondent in person and on perusal of records, the following questions arise for determination in the matter; (1) Whether the proceedings relating to the attachment of the property and the disposal thereof under the said Ordinance are of civil nature or not? (2) Whether the order of attachment passed under section 10 of the said Ordinance prior to 9th September 1988, but having not completed the period of three months from the date of passing of such order, would continue to remain in force for a period of one year on account of amendment brought about by P. C. Act of 1988 whereby the expression "three months" in the said section 10 of the said Ordinance was substituted by the "one year".