Heard.

2. Petitioner is the wife of the accused in C.C.No. 37 of 1989 of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate Court, Alwaye. The case is for an offence punishable under S.279 I.P.C. Summons issued to the accused was returned unserved. Non-bailable warrant also could not be executed. In the circumstances the Magistrate took steps under Ss.82 and 83 Crl.P.C. and when the property of the accused was attached, the petitioner put forward a claim under S.84 Crl.P.C. which was dismissed by the Magistrate and his order was confirmed in Crl.R.P.No.34 of 1991 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Paravur. According to the petitioner, the Magistrate did not follow the correct procedure and the attachment of the property was illegal. It was also submitted that the Sessions Judge made wrong observations as to the procedural aspects of the matter and committed a serious mistake in confirming the order of the Magistrate.

3. Indeed the accused had failed to appear inspite of process issued to him nd it was rightly held that he had absconded. The Magistrate was therefore right to deal with him as an absconding offender. Under S.82(1):

"If any Court has reason to believe (whether after taking e