LI Network
Published on: January 7, 2024 at 01:23 IST
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently ruled on the entitlement of a property owner to seek the release of a property subjected to interim attachment under the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance of 1994 (‘1994 Ordinance’).
The Court clarified that Section 8 of the 1994 Ordinance allows an individual whose property faces ad interim attachment to apply for its release, provided they furnish adequate security to the satisfaction of the District Judge.
Section 8 of the 1994 Ordinance grants the right to individuals whose property is attached or anticipated to be attached to request the District Judge to provide security in place of such attachment. The District Judge, upon being satisfied with the security provided, holds the authority to withdraw or refrain from executing the order of attachment.
In a recent case, the appellant, leasing a retail outlet on behalf of the Indian Oil Company, faced charges under Sections 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. This led to the temporary attachment of the retail outlet by an ad interim attachment order.
The appellant subsequently filed an application under Section 8 of the 1994 Ordinance before the Trial Court, seeking permission to operate the retail outlet, but the request was rejected by the Special Judge.
Upon reviewing the provisions of the 1994 Ordinance, the Court concluded that an individual affected by the interim attachment can, under Section 8, furnish security to the District Judge, who can then assess its adequacy and make a decision regarding the ad interim custody, pending the final attachment.
However, the Court noted that the appellant’s application to the Special Judge lacked an offer to furnish security and thus did not comply with Section 8 of the Ordinance. It also highlighted a prior decision by another Bench, rejecting a similar plea by the appellant, stating that it was premature as the final attachment order had not been issued.
The Court, nevertheless, deemed this decision as legally incorrect considering the specifics of Section 8 of the 1994 Ordinance.
The Court, in conclusion, disposed of the appeal, permitting the appellant to file a revised application under Section 8, ensuring proper compliance with necessary requirements, including furnishing adequate security.
