Attachment under proclamation must be raised after proceedings conclude and the adjudicated fine is paid.

The petitioner was prosecuted in S.C. No. 94 of 2020 before the Mahila Court, Pudukkottai, for an offence under Section 376(2)(F) IPC.

After he failed to appear, a non-bailable warrant was issued and proclamation proceedings were initiated under Section 82 Cr.P.C., corresponding to Section 84 BNSS.

Pursuant to the proclamation, the District Collector attached the petitioner’s undivided share in specified properties situated at Karakkottai Village, Manamelkudi Taluk, Pudukkottai District, under Patta No. 1762, and the attachment was reflected in the Encumbrance Certificate.

The petitioner was subsequently arrested, produced before the trial Court, and convicted on 09.09.2021.

He was initially sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of ₹2,00,000. In appeal, the Division Bench modified the sentence to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment while confirming the fine.

During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner deposited the entire fine amount before the Sessions Court on 16.09.2026.

He sought removal of the attachment on the ground that its purpose had ended after his arrest, trial, conviction, disposal of the appeal, and payment of the fine.

1. Whether the petitioner could seek removal of the attachment through a writ petition after the criminal trial and appeal had concluded and the fine had been paid?

2. Whether the attachment under Section 83 Cr.P.C. / corresponding BNSS provision should be continued when the petitioner had already been arrested and the attached property had not been sold or auctioned?

The Court applied the provisions governing attachment of the property of a person against whom proclamation proceedings have been initiated under Section 83 Cr.P.C., corresponding to Section 84 BNSS, and the provisions concerning release, sale, and restoration of attached property under Section 85(3) Cr.P.C., referred to in the judgment alongside Section 88(3) BNSS.

The Court held that the remedy before the trial Court is ordinarily appropriate where the criminal proceedings remain pending.

However, where the accused has been arrested, the trial and appeal have concluded, the fine has been paid, and the property has not been sold or auctioned, continuation of the attachment is no longer justified.

The Court rejected the respondents’ objection that the petitioner was required to approach the trial Court under the statutory provisions because the criminal proceedings had already culminated in conviction and the appeal had been disposed of on 03.04.2025.

The attachment was originally connected with securing the petitioner’s appearance pursuant to the proclamation. Since the petitioner had been arrested, produced before the Court, tried, and convicted, that purpose had been fulfilled.

Further, the petitioner had deposited the confirmed fine of ₹2,00,000, and the attached property had neither been sold nor put to public auction.

In these circumstances, the Court found no impediment to exercising its writ jurisdiction to direct release of the property and removal of the encumbrance.

The Court directed the District Collector, Pudukkottai, to issue formal proceedings raising the attachment over the petitioner’s share in the properties covered by Patta No. 1762 within four weeks of receiving the order.

The Collector was further directed to inform the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar to record the release of attachment and remove the corresponding encumbrance from the relevant registers and Encumbrance Certificates.

A compliance report, together with a fresh Encumbrance Certificate reflecting removal of the attachment, was directed to be filed within two months.