M.S.NESARGI
Siddanagouda – Appellant
Versus
State of Mysore – Respondent
The First Class Magistrate, Koppal, by his order passed on an application presented by the petitioner under section 89 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in Misc. Case No. 84 of 1970, requesting for release of the attached properties in his favour, rejected the request This petition is directed against that order.
2. The facts necessary for a decision are: that in C.C. No. 21 of 1968 on the file of the said First Class Magistrate, this petitioner was one of the accused. The charge was under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. As it was reported that the petitioner was absconding and the Magistrate felt satisfied, he issued a proclamation under section 87 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The proclamation was issued on 17th October, 1968. It may be mentioned here itself that by the said proclamation, the Magistrate called upon the petitioner to appear in his Court within 29th October, 1968, to answer the complaint.
3. As the petitioner did not appear in the said Court, the Magistrate proceeded to take action under section 88 of the Criminal Procedure Code and attached the properties in question.
4. It is found that the said criminal case ended in acquittal of the remaining accused a
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.