PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
D.K.Mahajan, J.
Pritam Kaur
Versus
State Of Punjab Through The Secretary Local Self Government, Chandigarh
Second Appeal No. 713 of 1958,
Decided On : MAY 13, 1966
Illegal Order - Criminal Procedure - The court held that the order under sections 87 and 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was illegal, and the consequences which flow from its disobedience cannot be visited on the absconder.
Fact of the Case:
The trial court decreed the plaintiff's suit, but the decision was reversed on appeal by the District Judge. The case involved a widow and daughter of Bakhtawar Singh, against whom a case was registered under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Warrants of arrest were issued, and an order was passed for attachment of his property under sections 87 and 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the order under sections 87 and 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was illegal, and the lower appellate Court was in error in holding that the illegality was either curable under section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or that there was no such illegality.
Issues: The issues involved the legality of the order under sections 87 and 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the consequences of its disobedience.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the order under sections 87 and 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was illegal, and the consequences which flow from its disobedience cannot be visited on the absconder.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the order of the District Judge was set aside, and the order of the trial Court was restored. There was no order as to costs in this Court.
1. This second appeal is directed against the decision of the District Judge. Jullundur reversing, on appeal, the decision of the trial Court decreeing the plaintiffs suit.
2. The plaintiffs are the widow and the daughter of Bakhtawar Singh. Against Bakhtawar Singh, a case was registered under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code on the 1st August. 1952. On the 4th August, 1952, warrants of arrest were issued and on the 12th August, 1952, an order was passed under sections 87 and 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for attachment of his property because the warrants of arrest could not be served. The only time, that was allowed to elapse between the first issuance of warrants of arrest and the orders under sections 87 and 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was 8 days. It appears that on the merits, the order under sections 87 and 88 was not justified. However, it is not necessary in this case to pronounce upon that matter. Suffice it to say that the order itself is defective because the order states that the absconder should appear within thirty days whereas according to section 87 clear thirty days have to be given for appearance. This matter came up for consideration in Pal Singh Santa Singh V/s. The State. AIR 1955 Punj 18, wherein a similar order was held to be illegal. That is a Division Bench decision and is binding on me in Single Bench. Once it is held that order under sections 87 and 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is illegal, the consequences which flow from its disobedience cannot be visited on the absconder. In this view of the matter, the lower appellate Court was in error in holding that the illegality was either curable under section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or, in fact, there was no such illegality.
3. For the reasons recorded above, I allow this appeal, set aside the order of the learned District Judge and restore that of the trial Court. There will be no order as to costs in this Court.
AI
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.