RAJ KUMARI JAIN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 6th July, 2011 passed by the District and Session Judge, Ajmer, whereby the learned Judge, has dismissed her application filed under Sections 84 and 85 of Cr.P.C.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that on 25th June, 2008, the appellant had bought certain pieces of agricultural land through a registered sale-deed from Smt. Ashya, the power of attorney holder of Azaizurrehman. The said sale-deed was registered with Sub-Registrar, Kota. On 5th March, 2010, the appellant was shocked to learn that the Tehsildar, Ladpura, District Kota, has attached her land. She was informed by the Tehsildar that her property has been attached in pursuance of the order dated 6th November, 2008 passed by the Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Ajmer in a case pending against Azaizurrehman. The said attachment order was passed as Azaizurrehman was absconding during the trial. Secondly, proceedings under Section 83 of Cr.P.C. were initiated against the properties belonging to Azaizurrehman. Since, her lands were still shown in Azaizurrehman's name in the revenue records, her lands were being attached. Since, her property was endangered, she filed an application under Section 84 and 85 of Cr.P.C. before the Special Judge. Moreover, she had informed the court that Azaizurrehman is incarcerated in Central Jail, Banglore under the name of Mohd. Arifreliaman @ Bawa. Therefore, she requested the learned trial court to secure his presence through production warrant. Simultaneously, SHO, police station Gumanpura, Kota also filed an application under Section 267(2) Cr.P.C. , wherein he also informed the court that in fact, Azaizurrehman is confined in the Central Jail, Banglore. The said fact was also confirmed by the special Public Prosecutor. However, despite all these facts being brought to the notice of the learned Judge, vide order dated 6th November, 2011 learned Judge rejected the application and directed the Tehsildar Ladpura to auction the appellant's property. Hence, this appeal before this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant had contended that subsequently, Azaizurrehman has been produced before the learned trial court as is apparent from the order dated 23rd August, 2011. A copy of the said order has been placed before this Court. Secondly, relying on the case of Vimlaben Ajitbhai Patel vs. Vatslaben Ashokbhai Patel & Ors., 2008 4 SCC 649, the learned counsel has contended that the provision contained in Section 82 of Cr.P.C. is enacted merely to secure the presence of accused. Once the said purpose is achieved, attachment of the property should be withdrawn. Therefore, as Azaizurrehman has already appeared before the learned trial court, and is facing the trial, the purpose of Section 82 has already been achieved. Thus, the property should no longer be attached.