IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

277 Date of decision: 08.01.2025 Surindarjit Singh Jaspal .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL Present : Mr. R.S. Cheema, Sr. Advocate with Mr. J.S. Mehndiratta, Advocate and Mr. Satish Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Deepender Brar, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

****

MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J.

1. This Court has been called upon to adjudicate the plea of the petitioner for quashing the order dated 16.07.2021 (Annexure P-1) whereby provisional attachment of House No.3048, Sector 20-D, Chandigarh was ordered in connection with FIR No.11 dated 17.09.2020, registered under Sections 409/420/467/468/471/120-B of the IPC, Section 13(1)(a) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 as amended by PC Amendment Act, 2018, at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Flying Squad-1 Punjab at Mohali. The petitioner also seeks quashing of the subsequent order dated 14.08.2024 (Annexure P-2) whereby the application moved by him for dropping the attachment proceedings was dismissed.

2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has argued that the provisional attachment order dated 16.07.2021 has lapsed by operation of law as per section 10 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ordinance'). It had been submitted by the learned senior counsel on the first date of hearing before this Court that the order of provisional attachment is valid for a period of one year unless extended by the Court or unless cognizance of the offense is taken within that period.

3. It has been asserted by the learned senior counsel that in the present case no extension was sought by the prosecution, and no cognizance was taken by the competent Court within the statutory period. Further, even after a lapse of three years, the prosecution till date has not taken any steps to seek an extension or confirm the provisional attachment. Consequently, the learned senior counsel has argued that in view of the statutory mandate and settled law, the order of provisional attachment would, therefore, stand automatically lapsed, and therefore, the property of the petitioner is now liable to be released. Learned senior counsel in support has relied upon the decision rendered in M/s KCP Infra Limited, formerly known as KCP Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of Tamil Nada and others : 2024(1) LW(Crl) 592 wherein Hon'ble the Supreme Court had emphasized that there has to be strict adherence to the statutory timelines prescribed under the Ordinance.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has contended that the delay in adjudicating the attachment proceedings was attributable to the deliberate non-corporation by the petitioner and failure on his part to file objections before the learned Trial Court. The learned State counsel has further argued that the petitioner had employed dilatory tactics to evade adjudication of the attachment proceedings, as is evident from the zimni orders of the learned Trial Court. Furthermore, the prosecution had filed a request for extension of the attachment order, but the matter could not be finalized due to the conduct of the petitioner himself. It has also been asserted by the learned State counsel that the challan in the present case has been filed on 17.12.2024 and the prosecution, therefore, is well within its rights to seek absolute attachment under Section 3 of the Ordinance. It has been lastly submitted by the learned State counsel that the lapse of the provisional attachment order does not preclude the prosecution from initiating fresh proceedings for attachment, as per the statutory scheme.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material on record.

6. Before proceeding to adjudicate the matter, it is necessary to examine the following relevant statutory provisions:-

Section 18A of the PC Act

18A. Provisions of Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 to apply to attachment under th