JUDGMENT D.N. Roy, J. - This is an application in revision. It raises the question as to whether the release of the property attached u/s 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could be withheld. A case was launched against the applicant u/s 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Section 409 and certain other sections of the IPC. A proclamation was drawn out by the Magistrate on 6-11-1952 purporting to be one u/s 87 of the Code of Criminal Procedure setting out that the court had reason to believe that the applicant was absconding or concealing himself and requiring him to appear "forthwith" be fore the Magistrate. Simultaneously with that order, attachment of certain movable property of the applicant was made. The applicant was later on arrested and tried; and I am told that it has ended in his conviction from which an appeal has been preferred by him and (sic) pending in this Court. Before the Magistrate the applicant raised objection to the effect that the provisions of Section 87 of the Code were not complied with and the attachment was, therefore, not valid u/s 88 of the Code and he claimed that the (sic) should be released in his favour. The learned Magistrate rejected that prayer because the prosecution had contended that the property attached would be exhibited in court in order to illustrate that the pecuniary resources of the accused were disproportionate to his known sources of income a fact which could be proved by the prosecution and which would lead the court to presume, unless the contrary was proved that the accused was guilty of criminal misconduct in discharge of his official duty as provided by Sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. Section 87 of the Code of Criminal Procedure authorises the issuing of a proclamation requiring the absconding person: to appear at a specified place and at a specified time not less than thirty days from the date of publishing such proclamation. 3. 2. Section 87 of the Code of Criminal Procedure authorises the issuing of a proclamation requiring the absconding person: to appear at a specified place and at a specified time not less than thirty days from the date of publishing such proclamation. 3. The section the provides: The proclamation shall be published as follows: (a) it shall be publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which such person ordinarily resides; (b) it shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which such person ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of such town or village; and (c) a copy there for shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the Court-house. 4. The proclamation requiring the Petitioner to appear "forthwith" was not proved to have been published in the town or village in which the applicant resided, nor was it proved that it was affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which the applicant ordinarily resided; nor was there proof to show that a copy thereof was affixed to some conspicuous part of the Court house. Clearly, therefore, there was a failure to comply with the provisions of the section. The minimum allowance of thirty days was not allowed to the Petitioner. Failure to comply with the provisions of Section 87 of the Code has been held to be an illegality not curable under the provisions of Section 537. Reference may be made to Queen Empress v. Subbarayar I.L.R 19 Mad. (sic), AIR 1942 214 (Lahore) , Mian Jan v. Abdul ILR 27 All. 572 and Mala Singh v. Emperor 35 IC 974. The most important part of the publication of the proclamation, u/s 87 of the Code is the publishing of it in the accused's place of residence; and the thirty days allowed by the section should be reckoned from the date of such publication. Magistrates when acting u/s 87 should always make an endorsement or statement in writing validating the proclamation as contemplated by Clause (3) of the section. If the proclamation is not made in accordance with the provisions of the Section 87, undesirable , results may follow. 5. The attachment envisaged in Section 88 of the Code can be made at any time after the proclamation has been issued. If the proclamation is not made in accordance with the provisions of the Section 87, undesirable , results may follow. 5. The attachment envisaged in Section 88 of the Code can be made at any time after the proclamation has been issued. Section 88(6E) of the Code provides that if the proclaimed person appears within the time specified in the proclamation, the Court shall make an order releasing the property from the attachment. Section 88(7) of the Code says that if the proclaimed person does not appear within the time specified in the proclamation, the property under attachment shall be at the disposal of the State Government. Can a Magistrate by issuing a proclamation u/s 87 of the Code restrict the minimum period of "not less than thirty days from the date of publishing such proclamation" and do away with the right of the proclaimed person which he can claim u/s 88(6E) of the Code by mentioning in the proclamation that the proclaimed person should present himself "forthwith"? If such a procedure were open to the Magistrate, Section 88(6E) of the Code of Criminal Procedure would be rendered absolutely nugatory because in all such cases if the proclamation calls upon the proclaimed person to present himself "forthwith"--and obviously the person cannot present himself forthwith when the order of proclamation is made--the proclaimed person by reason of the fact that he "does, not appear" within the time specified in the proclamation (which in such a case is "forthwith") lenders himself liable to the penalty laid down in Sub-clause (7) of Section 88, namely, that "the property under attachment shall be at the disposal of the State Government." Such a position is not envisaged on a plain reading of Sections 87 and 88 of the Code. 6. In the present case the proclamation not having been made in accordance with law, the attachment was illegal and the attachment should have been released in favour of the applicant. 7. It has been contended before me that now when the case has ended in the conviction of the applicant and some of the properties have been exhibited in court and the appeal is pending, those items of property which form part of the exhibits should not be released in favour of the applicant unless the appeal is decided. 7. It has been contended before me that now when the case has ended in the conviction of the applicant and some of the properties have been exhibited in court and the appeal is pending, those items of property which form part of the exhibits should not be released in favour of the applicant unless the appeal is decided. The order of release will, therefore, be subject to any order which has been passed in regard to the attached property at the trial, namely, that if any such property has been made an exhibit in the case that property shall not be released unless and until the appeal is disposed of, and the disposal of that property shall be subject to the orders of the Court when the appeal is heard. The application is allowed in terms aforesaid.