S.K.Chattopadhyaya, J.

1. Two important questions arise in this case; one of which is as to whether in pursuance of a proclamation order under Sec. 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the property of any individual who is not the proclaimed person can be attached. The second point for consideration is as to whether the Police Officer is under an obligation to furnish the inventory of seized articles to the Magistrate forthwith as required under Sec. 25 of the Bihar Police Manual 1978.

2. In order to appreciate the contention raised by the parties, backdrop of the facts may be portrayed. The petitioner is admittedly mother of the absconder namely, Ashok Soni. This Ashok Soni was wanted by the Police and for his apprehension the properties were seized in execution of the process issued by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Ranchi. The petitioner filed a petition for release of the seized articles purported to be under Sec. 84 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 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 that when the petitioner is admittedly not an offender, her property could not have been seized by the Police on the ground that one of her sons is an offender and wanted by the Police. Referring to the enquiry report of the Judicial Magistrate, Mr. Sinha submits that when during the enquiry the Police did not produce any evidence to rebut the assertion of the petitioner that she is the owner of the seized articles and the Judicial Magistrate having satisfied directed the officer in-charge to release the articles, the Chief Judicial Magistrate should not have refused the prayer of the petitioner without applying his mind. He further submits that the audacity of the Officer-in-charge of Argora Police Station is apparent from the faceof record that inspite of repeated directions he did not produce the inventory before the Court which he was bound to do under the law.

4. Mr. Jawahar Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for the opposite parties, On the other hand, has tried to justify the reasoning given by the Chief Judicial Magistrate by submitting that when the said Ashok Soni was living with the petitioner under the same roof it would be presumed that Ashok Soni was also the owner of the articles seized. His further contention is that if these type of steps are not taken by the Police then no criminal, like Ashok Soni, can be apprehended by the Police.

5. In order to appreciate the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties, one has to examine the provisions as laid down in Secs. 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Sec. 82 of the Code has given power to the court to publish a written proclamation requiring an offender to appear at a specified place and at a specified time against whom a warrant has been issued by it. This power, the Court can exercise if he has reason to believe