SULOCHANA DOBI ALIAS AGARWALLA Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE MAYURBHANJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner calls in question legality of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mayurbhanj, at Baripadas action in issuing a proclamation under section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, Cr. P.C.) and a writ of attachment of property in respect of one Om Prakash Agarwalla under section 83, Cr. P.C. by impugned order dated 8.7.1991.

(2.) The background portrayed by the petitioner is as follows: The aforesaid Om Prakash is an opposite party in Misc. Case No. 46 of 1991 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mayurbhanj at Baripada. An application had been filed under section 7 of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (in short. the Act) read with sections 82, 83, 84 and 85, Cr. P.C. by the District Magistrate, Mayurbhanj. Section 7 of the Act authorises a Judicial Magistrate, First Class, to take such action as contemplated under sections 82, 83, 84 and 85. where a person is believed to be an absconder in respect of an order of detention under the Act. The learned CJM passed an order directing the aforesaid Om Prakash Agarwalla to appear before the Court on or before 5.4 .1991. An order of proclamation and attachment was also simultaneously issued. The said order was challenged by a partnership styled Mis Mulchand On karmall in this Court on the plea that the firm property was going to be attached. This Court, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 377 of 1991, dismissed the application as it was found on verification that the property of the firm was not going to be attached. It was, however, observed that section 82(1), Cr. P.C. provides that if any Court has reason to believe that any person against whom a warrant has been issued by it has absconded or is concealing himself so that such warrant cannot be executed, the Court may publish a written proclamation requiring him to appear at a specified place and at a specified time not less than thirty days from the date of publication of such proclamation. Since the order was passed on 22.3.199 1, and Om Prakash was directed to appear on 5.4.1991, re-issue of proclamation allowing time stipulated was directed as the one issued had already elapsed. The impugned order was passed pursuant to the said decision. The same is assailed on various grounds of alleged legal infirmities.

(3.) A preliminary objection was raised to the maintainability of the application at the behest of the petitioner by Mr. A.N. Misra, learned Counsel for State. According to him the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the order. The learned Counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner being the wife of Om Prakash has interest in the property in respect of which attachment order has been passed and therefore, the petition is maintainable.