Allowed

Pavithran v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Feb 2016WP(C)/754/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Magistrate Court to lift attachment of the petitioner's property after his acquittal. The Court clarified that attachment under Cr.P.C. Sections 82-85 compels appearance, not divestiture of title, and must be lifted once the accused appears before exhaustion of proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Magistrate Court to lift the property attachment and communicate the lifting to authorities within one month of receipt of this judgment.

Pavithran Vs State of Kerala — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/26TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 754 of 2016 (T)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

PAVITHRAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, KONNULLAPARAMBATH VEEDU, KUNNUMMAL AMSOM, VATTOLI DESOM, P.O. VATTOLI, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.A.S.JEOTHI BASU, SRI.CIBI THOMAS.

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 001.

¶11

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE -673 001.

¶12

3. VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, VATTOLY , KOZHIKODE DISTRICT- 673 001.

¶13

BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BIJU MEENATTOOR.

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

rs.

¶16

WP(C).No. 754 of 2016 (T)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶19

P1:TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CC NO.452/2013 OF JFCM NADAPURAM DATED 19/02/2014.

¶20

P2:TRUE COPY OF THE TITLE DEED OF THE PETITIONER DATED 15/07/2015.

¶21

P3:TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20/05/2015 ISSUED BY THE JFCM NADAPURAM IN CMP.3433/2015.

¶22

P4:TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION PREFERRED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 29/05/2015.

¶23

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶28

================== W.P.(C).No.754 of 2016

¶29

==================

¶30

Dated this the 15^th day of February, 2016

¶31

J U D G M E N T

¶32

The petitioner was an accused in C.C No.495/2010 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nadapuram. The proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner's property was attached on 20.06.2011. Thereafter the petitioner appeared on 25.3.2013. The petitioner has been acquitted by the court. The petitioner applied for lifting the attachment. This has been rejected. The reason for rejection is that the petitioner did not appear within the time as stipulated in the proclamation of the attachment.

¶33

The petitioner challenges the order of the Magistrate and also seeking a direction to lift the attachment. This Court also called for the report from the Magistrate on why the attachment has not been lifted in spite of the petitioner has been acquitted and also to file a report whether any case is pending

¶34

W.P.(C).No.754 of 2016 - : 2 :-

¶35

against the petitioner.

¶36

The Report would indicate that the petitioner is not involved in any other case before the same court. It would also indicate the attachment has not been lifted for the reason that the petitioner failed to appear before the Court within the time stipulated in the proclamation for the attachment.

¶37

Section 82 provides for proclamation for person for absconding. Section 83 speaks provides for the attachment of property of person absconding. Section 85 of the Cr.P.C provides for sale of attached property. It is to be noted that these procedures are in fact procedures to compel an accused to appear before the Court who otherwise if absconding from the process of the court. When the person appeared before the Court before the exhaustion of proceedings as contemplated under the criminal procedure Code, certainly that attachment is liable to be lifted. The attachment procedures do not indicate divesting of the title of the accused by lapse of time. Therefore the moment accused appeared before the Court before the completion of the proceedings in terms of Section 85, the court

¶38

W.P.(C).No.754 of 2016 - : 3 :-

¶39

ought to have lifted the attachment. Thus the writ petition is disposed of, with following directions:

¶40

The Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Nadapuram is directed to communicate the lifting of the attachment to the authority concerned within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment.

¶41

sd/-

¶42

sab A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE

Pavithran v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pavithran v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B. Venugopal Vs Union of India & Another

Johny Vs Revenue Divisional Officer

Arogyamary Vs State of Kerala

The City Theatres (P) Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

N.P.Raman Kutty Vs Sub Registrar Anthicadu

Akhila Vs Tahsildar