LAWS(P&H)-2015-1-558

NARANG SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

Decided On January 16, 2015
NARANG SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this appeal is to the order dated 03.06.2014 passed by Shri Kuldip Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, vide which ad -interim order dated 22.08.2012 passed by Shri Rajnish Garg, Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, attaching the property of appellant, was made absolute. Briefly stated, FIR No. 57 dated 05.05.2009 under Sections 420/406/465/467/468 of the Indian Penal Code (in short "the IPC") Police Station Amloh, was registered against the petitioner now appellant with the allegations that Narang Singh (appellant) while posted as Postal Assistant during the period from 04.08.2007 to 15.11.2008 withdrew an amount of Rs.9,41,600/ - deposited by various depositors and caused loss to the department. Accordingly, FIR in question was registered. The appellant was facing trial in that case. During the pendency of trial, Shri Rajnish Garg, the then Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, vide order dated 22.08.2012 ordered the attachment of 17 kanals 13 marlas of land belonging to the appellant under Section 3 of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance Act, 1944 (in short "the Ordinance Act").

(2.) NOTICE was issued to the appellant and the appellant filed objections to the attachment of said property. In reply, it is mentioned that although FIR has been registered but the appellant has been released on bail and as such, the present application under the Ordinance Act is premature. All other allegations were simply denied. No specific objection regarding attachment was made.

(3.) THE learned trial court vide impugned order made the order dated 22.08.2012 absolute. The said order has been challenged before this court in the instant appeal. Vide CRM No. 1511 of 2015 an application has been filed for condoning the delay of 166 days in filing the appeal. The grounds taken by the appellant in the said application is that the order regarding attachment was not in his knowledge and he only came to know about the same from Patwari. The reason given in the application cannot be believed.