SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1971 Supreme(Mad) 622

M.S.NESARGI
Siddanagouda – Appellant
Versus
State of Mysore – Respondent


Advocates:
C.S. Anasuya, Advocate, for Petitioner.
D.S. Hulgur, High Court Government Pleader, for State Public Prosecutor.

Order-

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







Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top