Clarification on attachment of property by bank

666 votes

The Hyderabad High Court has held that the Limitation Act will be applicable to cases of attachment of properties belonging to those accused in graft cases for extending the period of attachment.

Justice U. Durga Prasad Rao was disposing of petitions challenging the orders passed by a trial court making the interim attachment made under the provisions of Ordinance 1944 as absolute beyond the elapsing of the stipulated period of one year.

As per Section 10 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance 1944 the order of attachment of properties made under Section 4 (1) of the Ordinance shall continue to be in force for a period of one year from the date of order unless cognisance of the offence is taken or unless the court on application by the state or its agent passes an extension order.

The trial court after examing the case allowed the petitions by the investigation authorities by condoning the delay of one year from the date of attachment.

The petitioners contended that Limitation Act particularly Section 5 of the Act will have no application to the proceedings under Ordinance 1944 since the Ordinance is a special law and it has not conferred power on court to condone the delay in filing extension petition either under provisions of the Ordinance or under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

After studying the case law and findings of the Supreme Court in the Mukri Gopalan versus Cheppilat Puthanpuravil Aboobacker case, the judge held that for determining any period of limitation prescribed by a special or local law for a suit, appeal or application all the provisions containing Sections 4 to 24 of the limitation would apply to the extent to which they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law.

The judge reminded that in Ordinance 1944 the operation of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act was not excluded either expressly or implied.

Advocate Siddhant Sharma LawRato