Erroneous dismissal of Section 85 Cr.P.C. application set aside as attachment subsists.

J U D G M E N T

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader.

2. The petitioner submitted Ext.P7 application under Section 85 of the Cr.P.C. to lift the attachment made by the Court in a proceedings initiated under Sections 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C. This Court as per Ext.P9 judgment directed the learned Magistrate to consider and dispose of Ext.P7 in accordance with law. However, the learned Magistrate dismissed Ext.P7 as per Ext.P10 order holding that the petitioner represented that there is no attachment over the property. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no such representation was made and in fact the attachment is still subsisting. It is also discernible from the records that attachment over the property is still subsisting and that is the very grievance of the petitioner.

3. In these circumstances, Ext.P10 stands set aside.

The Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Irinjalakuda, is directed to dispose of Ext.P7 in accordance with law, within two months from the date of the receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Original Petition (Crl.) is disposed of as above.