Clause 4 of the act empowers the District Judge to pass an order of ad interim attachment on prima facie grounds for believing that the person in respect of whom the application is made has committed any scheduled offence or has procured any money or property thereby. Clause 5 provides for an investigation of objections to the attachment who have been served with notices under clause 4. In this context, the presumption of innocence of an accused till he is convicted must be borne in mind and there is no reason to consider this presumption to have vaporized upon the death of an accused.
reiterated that Chandigarh Advocates
there is no doubt that conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence but it should be tested on the touch stone of law relating to circumstantial evidence. that the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and they should be incapable of explanation on any hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence.
It excludes the possibility of proceedings against a dead person. It requires the Government to furnish the District Judge with a copy of the judgment or order of the trial court and with copies of the judgment or orders, if any of the appellate or revisional court thereon. It is not possible for us to accept the submission. It will be convenient to deal with them at this stage one by one. 11 of the Punjab Act XII of 1948 does not mean any act done by a person in contravention of the provisions of the East Punjab Refugees (Registration of Land Claims) Ordinance VII of 1948.
The petitioner has prayed for directions, inter alia, for finding out reasons for loss of lives, for assessment of damage to property and for grant of compensation or financial assistance to victims. No less than five reasons have been suggested in support of the argument that a restricted construction should be placed on clause (2) of article 286. Clause 13 requires the Government to inform the District Judge about the status of the criminal proceedings.
This is by virtue of clause 3 which empowers the Government to authorise making of such an application to the District Judge where it has reason to believe that any person has committed any scheduled offence. Following was laid down in paragraphs 14,15 and 16: The matter was discussed elaborately and various prior decisions of the Privy Council were considered and the conclusion was summed up as follows in In Be. Concept of abatement of a trial could be subsumed in the clause where the final judgment and order of the Criminal Court is one of acquittal.
It may be noted that this Court has time and again reiterated the presumption of innocence of an accused till he is convicted. Sub-clause 2 mandates that the District Judge shall forthwith withdraw any orders of attachment of property made in connection with the offence if (a) cognizance of alleged scheduled offence has not been taken or (b) where the final judgment and orders of the criminal court is one of acquittal. In this respect it is in line with what would happen if any other State legislation passed by that Legislature is presented to the Governor for his assent and be reserves the same for the consideration of the President.
While, this clause is clear that the orders of attachment must be withdrawn if cognizance of the offence has not been taken or there has been an acquittal; the clause is silent as to the effect of abatement of prosecution. Sub-clause 3 empowers the District Judge to pass an order making the ad interim order of attachment absolute or varying it by releasing a portion of the property or withdrawing the order.
This is commonly true even where the error is a matter of serious concern, provided correction can be bad by, legislation. But in cases involving the Federal Constitution, where correction through legislative action is practically impossible, this Court has often overruled its earlier decisions. Canada Temperance Federation(3); and Phanindra Chandra Neogy v. But however clause 3 requires the Government to make such an application to the District Judge within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the said person ordinarily resides or carries on business; thus clearly requiring the existence of such a person.
If the law requires that the orders of attachment should be withdrawn upon acquittal it stands to reason that such orders must be withdrawn when the prosecution abates or cannot result in a conviction due to the death of the accused, whose property is attached. The term "anything done'. It is due to this silence that it is contended by the State Government in this case that the orders of attachment could not only have been continued but could also have been confirmed.
Sub- clause 2 requires the District Judge to issue a notice, presumably at the address where the person ordinarily resides or carries on business (vide clause 3) along with copies of the order and the application etc. While sub-articles (1) and (2) impose certain bans on taxation what sub-article (3) does is not to impose a ban at all but to impose a fetter in respect of taxation on sales of essential goods declared as such by the Parliament by requiring that before such a taxation-law can have any effect, it should be reserved for the consideration of the President and receive his assent.
This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India has been filed in public interest by an Advocate Chandigarh
practising in this Court highlighting an incident that occurred on 01. The Court bows to the lessons of experience and the force of better reasoning recognising that the process of trial and error, so fruitful in the physical sciences, is appropriate also in the judicial function". (17) In the case of disobedience of an order made by the Tribunal under sub- sections (12), (13) and (18) or breach of any of the terms on which the order was made, the Tribunal may order the properties of the person guilty of such disobedience or breach to be attached and may also order such person to be detained Lawyers in Chandigarh
the civil prison for a term not exceeding three months, unless in the Lawyer Chandigarh
meantime the Tribunal directs his release.
In another dissenting judgment in David Burnet v. The term "anything clone" refers to official acts done in the exercise of the powers conferred by or under the Ordinance. He has also prayed for directions for laying down guidelines for necessary precautions and care to be taken so that such tragedy is not repeated again. The only difference is that while in the latter the reservation for the President is optional, in the case of such essential goods the reservation is compulsory.
2011 near Mohammadabad Crossing in Shahjahanpur Division in State of Uttar Pradesh. In a foot-note to this judgment the learned Judge set out a large number of instances where the earlier decisions had been overruled.