Court attaches property of accused on failing to fulfil undertaking

Court attaches property of accused on failing to fulfil undertaking

The third additional Munsiff, Srinagar, Nusrat Ali, issued the direction after the counsel of complainant advocate Marouf Khan pleaded that the accused was absconding and delaying the course of justice.

A local court here Monday directed authorities to attach property of a proclaimed offender after the accused failed to appear before the court.

The third additional Munsiff, Srinagar, Nusrat Ali, issued the direction after the counsel of complainant advocate Marouf Khan pleaded that the accused was absconding and delaying the course of justice.

As per the complaint before the court, the accused Muneer-ud-Din Khan of NishatBatgoo allegedly committed an offence under Negotiable Instrument Act, but the warrant issued against him could not be executed repeatedly in the past.

“I deem it fit and proper to direct the attachment of 5 marlas of land belonging to the accused under survey number 145. Therefore, TehsildarKhanyar is directed to attach the 5 marlas of land under Khasra number 145, Khewat No. 284, Khata No. 1594, situated at Mouza Brain Tehsil, belonging to the accused. Accordingly, Tehsildar concerned is directed to submit its compliance report by or before 28 February 2019,” the court said after the accused didn’t appear before court.

On 5 February, the accused was produced in custody before the court and his counsel advocate Javaid Ahmad Baba was also present.

That time the accused had given an undertaking that he would liquidate the cheque amount in seven installments and pay the first installment of Rs 10,000 on 12 February 2019 to Ubaid Majid of Panthachowk, the complainant. However, on 12 February, the accused despite his undertaking, remained absent.

 “His (accused) counsel too was absent. It reveals the conduct of the accused despite an undertaking before the court,” the court said while announcing order of attachment of his property.

Earlier, the court had issued proclamation notice against the accused in local dailies after being satisfied that he was absconding.

“The accused cannot be found and whereas it has been shown to my satisfaction that the accused has absconded and is concealing himself to avoid the service of the warrant and thereupon a proclamation dated 6 November has been duly issued and published requiring the accused to appear and to answer the charge within 30-days, failing which proceeding under relevant provisions of law shall be initiated against him,” court had said while giving absconding accused an opportunity to appear before the court to answer charges.