1983 P Cr (PLP)

‑‑ S. 4(1) read with S. 10‑Attachment of property, scope of

Challan against accused submitted in trial Court‑Interim extended order of attachment, held, stood automatically vacated on very day of submission of challan.‑[Attachment]. Ch. Nazir Ahmed for Appellant. Ansar Husain for Respondent. Date of hearing ‑ 17th November, 1982. The appellant above‑named, being aggrieved by order dated 10th April, 1976; passed by the learned District Judge, Karachi, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 1 /73, by which he rejected the objections filed by the appellant and confirmed the interim order of attachment dated 15‑12‑1973, under section 4 of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944, has preferred the above appeal on the facts and grounds mentioned in the above appeal.

2. The main contention urged by the learned Advocate for the appellant before me in support of the above appeal was that interim order of attachment passed under section 4(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 dated 14‑12‑1973, under the provisions of section 10 of the said Ordinance could not have remained in force beyond the period of three months, unless the cognizance of such offence was taken or unless the District Judge on application by the agent of the appropriate government thought it proper to extend the said order and pass such orders accordingly. However, in the present case, the challan in respect of the alleged offence was filed before the learned trial Court in October, 1977 and as such unless the interim order was extended as a result of the application of the appropriate government as contemplated by section 10 of the said Ordinance, the said interim order died natural death. It is an admitted position according to the learned Advocate for the appellant, that the application filed by the appropriate government for extension of the interim order was after the lapse of the interim order in question and as such was not maintainable, but in spite of this the learned District Judge by impugned order, extended the said interim order and consequently the same could not legally be maintained.

3. The learned Advocate for the appellant further drew my attention to the impugned order itself, according to which the interim attachment order was extended by the learned District Judge, Karachi till the challan against the respondents in the said application was submitted and as such even this impugned order stood automatically vacated in October, 1977 when the challan in question was submitted before the learned trial Court.

4. The learned Advocate for the State could not dispute above the admitted position. However, he submitted, that in view of the above facts, the above appeal has become infructuous, as there is no interim order of attachment in force in respect of the appellant's property at present, which could be set aside in the above appeal and, therefore, the above appeal is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.

5. I have carefully considered the above submissions made by the learned Advocate before me and have gone through the impugned order. In view of the admitted fact, that the challan against the respondents in the said application was submitted in October, 1977, interim extended attachment order, vide impugned order dated 10‑4‑1976 stood automatically vacated on the day when the challan was submitted, before the learned trial Court and as such the above appeal has now become infructuous and consequently the same is dismissed as such.

6. However, the appellant will be at liberty to take appropriate action, if any, which may be available to him, on account of continuance implementa tion of the impugned order dated 10th April, 1976 by the appropriate government, if in spite of impugned order having lapsed the properties of the appellant are continued to be attached thereunder. Order accordingly.