Modi, J.—This is a revision by the petitioner Biraddan against an order of the Sessions Judge, Balotra by which he dismissed the appeal of the petitioner against an order of the First Glass Magistrate, Sanchore, rejecting an application for restoration of certain attached property under secs. 87 to 89 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The material facts may be briefly stated as follows. The petitioner was wanted in connection with a case under secs. 302, 379, 148 and 149, I.P.C. which was pending in the court of the First Glass Magistrate, Sanchore. It was reported to the Magistrate that the petitioner was absconding. Thereupon a proclamation under sec. 87, Cr.P.C. was drawn up and issued against him on the 27th January, 1954. By this proclamation, the accused was directed to present himself in the Magistrates court "within 30 days of the date of the proclamation." The Magistrate also issued a warrant of attachment under sec. 88, Cr.P.C. on the same date and in pursuance thereof, certain cattle of the petitioner was attached. This cattle was claimed by the petitioners son to be his own and the petitioner also seems to say so but the point whether it belongs to the petitioner or his son under the circumstances is immaterial. The accused appeared in court voluntarily, according to the petitioner, on the 22nd March, 1954. On the 24th March, 1954, he made an application to the Magistrate that he had never absconded and that he was ill and undergoing treatment elsewhere and that the proclamation issued against him was illegal and inoperative and that as soon as he came to know of it he had appeared in court. The Magistrate recorded evidence on the question of the petitioners illness and eventually came to the conclusion that it was not worthy of belief. In that view the Magistrate refused to restore the attached cattle to the petitioner, and rejected his application by his order, dated the 30th June, 1956. The petitioner then went in appeal to the learned Sessions Judge Balotra who dismissed the appeal as barred by time. I am informed that the petitioner has since been acquitted of the charge levelled against him It is contended before me on behalf of the petitioner that a prayer was made to the learned Sessions Judge to treat the appeal as a revision but there is nothing on the record to show that this was done. In any case, the learned Judge did not apply his mind to the question of the illegality of the proclamation issued in the present case and its implications. The present revision has been filed from the aforesaid order.

3. The principal contention raised before me on behalf of the petitioner is that the proclamation issued against him by the Magistrate was not in conformity with the mandatory provisions of sec. 87, Cr.P.C. and was, therefore, a nullity and further that any attachment of the cattle under such circumstances could not be supported in law and should be set aside, and the cattle be restored.

4. I have carefully considered this aspect of the case, and heard the learned Government Advocate, and have arrived at the conclusion that the argument is not without force. Secs. 87 and 88, Cr.P.C. make certain provisions for compelling the attendance of an accused (or for that matter a witness) who may be found to be absconding and evading his presence in court. Sec 87 provides that in the circumstances mentioned in the section a proclamation can be issued against the wanted person and lays dawn the requirements which a proclamation should fulfil. These requirements are that the proclamation should require the person concerned to appear at a specified place and at a specified time and so far as time is concerned, it further requires that the specified time should not be less than 30 days from the date of the publication of the proclamation. The section further goes on to provide as to the manner of the publication of the proclamation and enacts that it shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house of the person r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document