JUDGMENT - B.B. VAGYANI, J.:---Heard Shri M.S. Phatak, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri A.B. Gaikwad, learned APP for the State. 2. The petitioner has filed this criminal writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code for quashment of the order of attachment of movable and immovable property passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad. 3. The petitioner was a Police Officer. He is permanent resident of Kallamnuri, District Parbhani. In 1956, he was selected as P.S.I. He completed his training in the year 1956-57 at Hyderabad and Nasik. He owned 17 acres of land at Shivani and 4 acres of land at Dhanora, Tq. Kallamnuri, District Parbhani. The petitioner has already sold land to the extent of 4 acres situated at Dhanora in the year 1960 for Rs. 1500/-. He has also sold two houses for Rs. 47,000/- in the year 1984 and 1986 respectively. The petitioner was the only earning member in the family. He had no source of income other than salary and income from landed property. The petitioner has constructed two houses in the year 1976 and 1986 at Nanded and Cidco, Aurangabad respectively. The value of the house situated at Bhagyanagar, Nanded is Rs. 55,464-and the value of the bungalow situated at Cidco, Sector No. N-1 Aurangabad is Rs. 3,71,241/-. He has purchased one plot in the name of his son. The value of the Plot No. H-5-19-Cidco is Rs. 33,030/-. Number of complaints were received against the petitioner and, therefore, enquiry was conducted by Additional Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Aurangabad and during the course of said enquiry, it was revealed that the petitioner possessed property disproportionate to his known source of income. Accordingly, Shri B.M. Sharma, Additional S.P., A.C.B. Aurangabad was directed to lodge F.I.R. against the petitioner. Shri B.M. Sharma filed F.I.R. against the petitioner on 27-10-1987 and on the basis of which, Crime No. II-79 of 1987 for the offences punishable under sections 5(1)(c) r/w 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and under section 109 of Indian Penal Code is registered at Cidco Police Station, Aurangabad. 4. During the course of investigation, Shri A.D. Shinde, Dy. S.P., A.C.B., Aurangabad took search of the house of petitioner. 4. During the course of investigation, Shri A.D. Shinde, Dy. S.P., A.C.B., Aurangabad took search of the house of petitioner. He seized movable property consisting of gold and silver ornaments, silver utensils, cash, F.D. Receipts, several pass books of the banks, shares etc. The value of the seized property is worth Rs. 3,89,455.34 ps. Dy. S.P. Shri Shetkar and Additional S.P. A.C.B. Aurangabad Shri Oturkar took search of the temporary residence of the petitioner at Yavatmal. Dy. S.P. Shetkar attached one D.B.B.L. Gun 12 Bore worth of Rs. 500/-. The movable property seized is deposited in the Court of C.J.M. Aurangabad on 6-11-1987 and the documents i.e. F.D.R., several pass books of banks, R.D. Accounts worth of Rs. 66,767-05 ps. are, however, kept in the office by Dy. S.P. A.D. Shinde. 5. On 4-11-1988, Shri A.D. Shinde, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Aurangabad moved the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad for attachment of the movable and immovable property shown in the schedule. The said application was filed under section 3 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance of 1944 (hereinafter referred to as Ordinance of 1944). The schedule annexed to the application for attachment of properties comprises movable and immovable properties. The properties described at Sr. Nos. 1 to 3 of the Schedule are immovable properties. The properties at Sr. Nos. 1 and 2 are houses and property at Sr. No. 3 is a plot. The properties described at Sr. Nos. 4 to 66 are movable properties including cash, fixed deposit receipts, silver utensils, gold ornaments and DBBL 12 Bore Gun etc. 6. During pendency of the application for attachment dated 4-11-1988, charge-sheet came to be filed on 15-1-1991. On 18-11-1991, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad passed the order on the application for attachment of the property. He has observed that the property other than immovable property mentioned at Sr. Nos. 1 to 3 in the Schedule has been already attached and taken possession of by the investigating agency. So far as immovable properties are concerned, he has stated that immovable property has not been attached till that day and taken in possession and, therefore, he proposed to pass attachment order only in respect of immovable property. By order dated 18-11-1991, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad allowed the State to attach the immovable property following the procedure as laid down in Order 21, Rule 54 of Civil Procedure Code. By order dated 18-11-1991, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad allowed the State to attach the immovable property following the procedure as laid down in Order 21, Rule 54 of Civil Procedure Code. 7. The present petitioner moved the learned Special Judge under section 10 of the Ordinance of 1944 for withdrawal of the attachment. The learned Special Judge, Aurangabad by his order dated 6-8-1997 refused to withdraw the order of attachment dated 18-11-1991 and rejected the application filed by the present petitioner. The correctness of the attachment order dated 18-11-1991 and rejection order dated 6-8-1997 is challenged in this criminal writ petition. 8. Shri Shriniwas Tandale, Dy. S.P., A.C.B., Aurangabad has filed affidavit in reply on behalf of the State. It is stated in the affidavit in reply that on discrete enquiry, it is found that prima facie case under section 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is made out. (Section 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act, 1988 is identical to section 5(1)(e) of the repealed P.C. Act of 1947. Similarly, section 13(2) of the P.C. Act, 1988 is identical to section 5(2) of the repealed P.C. Act of 1947). It is further stated in the affidavit in reply that the quantum of disproportionate asset is estimated to the tune of Rs. 8,72,472/- which is 125.11% disproportionate to the known sources of income of Rs. 6,97,317.80 ps. The petitioner has compulsorily retired from service by Order No. 10/46-B dated 26-6-1990. It is further stated in the affidavit in reply that the order of attachment is required to be continued till termination of the criminal proceedings as prescribed under section 10 of the Ordinance of 1944. The deponent further states that if the property attached is released from the attachment, the very purpose of attachment will be defeated. Finally it is stated that the petitioner ought to have challenged the legality of the attachment order and the rejection order by filing appeal, as contemplated under section 11 of the Ordinance of 1944. 9. Shri Phatak, learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad did not at all attach the movable and immovable property belonging to the petitioner and, therefore, the learned Special Judge ought to have returned the property to the petitioner. 9. Shri Phatak, learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad did not at all attach the movable and immovable property belonging to the petitioner and, therefore, the learned Special Judge ought to have returned the property to the petitioner. According to Shri Phatak, section 3 of the Ordinance of 1944, empowers the District Judge to attach the money and other property which the State Government believes that the said person has procured such property liable to be attached by means of the offence. By virtue of section 4 of the Ordinance of 1944, the District Judge is further empowered to issue ad interim attachment. Section 5 of the Ordinance of 1944 speaks about investigation of the objections raised to the attachment. Section 10 of the Ordinance of 1944 provides duration for the attachment. The order of attachment of property passed under the Ordinance of 1944 will remain in force for a period of one year if the Court has not taken cognizance of the scheduled offence at the time when the order for attachment of the property is applied for. The order of attachment passed after cognizance of the scheduled offence is taken, will remain in force till termination of the criminal proceedings. Pointing out these relevant provisions of the Ordinance of 1944, Shri Phatak, learned Counsel forcefully submitted that the concerned authority though applied for attachment of movable and immovable property, the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad did not attach the properties of the petitioner. The order dated 18-11-1991 is not at all the order of attachment. Under the circumstances, the property seized by the Investigating Officer is liable to be returned to the petitioner. 10. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. Shri Gaikwad, has strongly supported both the orders i.e. earlier order dated 18-11-1991 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad and the subsequent order dated 6-8-1997 passed by the Special Judge. According to learned A.P.P. Shri Gaikwad, the order dated 18-11-1991 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad is order of attachment of property and this order of attachment shall remain in force till termination of the criminal proceedings, as per section 10(b) of the Ordinance of 1944. According to learned A.P.P. Shri Gaikwad, the order dated 18-11-1991 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad is order of attachment of property and this order of attachment shall remain in force till termination of the criminal proceedings, as per section 10(b) of the Ordinance of 1944. He further submitted that aggrieved person has independent remedy by way of appeal as provided in section 11 of the Ordinance of 1944 and, therefore, this is not a fit case to invoke discretionary power of the High Court under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He finally submits that the present criminal writ petition filed by the petitioner suffers from latches. 11. I carefully perused the order dated 18-11-1991. In order to understand the exact nature of the order dated 18-11-1991, it is necessary to reproduce the operative part of the order. It reads as under : “1. Application is allowed. 2. The property mentioned in the Schedule annexed to the order appended to the application is allowed to attach, if not till this date attached, following the procedure as laid down in Rule 54 of Order 21 of the Civil Procedure Code.” If the order dated 18-11-1991 is subjected to close scrutiny, there is no manner of doubt that in fact there is no order of attachment of immovable property. The learned Additional Sessions Judge did not apply his mind and passed the order in the above nature. It is to be noted that no attachment order has been actually passed under Order 21, Rule 54 of Civil Procedure Code at any time after 18-11-1991. It was specifically prayed in the application for attachment that the Court should attach the property described in the Schedule under the appropriate provisions of Civil Procedure Code namely Order 21, Rule 46, Order 21, Rule 52 and Order 21, Rule 54. Shri A.D. Shinde, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, had also prayed in the application for attachment that pending hearing of the application, the Court may issue ad interim order of attachment of the property. Section 7 of the Ordinance of 1944 states that an order of attachment of the property under the Ordinance of 1944 shall be carried into effect so far as may be practicable in the manner provided in the Civil Procedure Code for the attachment of property in execution of a decree. Section 7 of the Ordinance of 1944 states that an order of attachment of the property under the Ordinance of 1944 shall be carried into effect so far as may be practicable in the manner provided in the Civil Procedure Code for the attachment of property in execution of a decree. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad has not at all taken into consideration the procedure for attachment of the property contemplated in section 3 of the Ordinance of 1944. In spite of specific request made in the application for attachment of the property, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad did not at all pass ad interim order of attachment. There is nothing on record to show that the Additional Sessions Judge was of the opinion that there exists no prima facie grounds for believing that the petitioner has committed any scheduled offence. It is interesting to note that after passing of the order dated 18-11-1991, nothing further was done. 12. Admittedly, there are two kinds of properties movable and immovable. Some of the movable properties are in fact seized by the investigating agency during the course of investigation. It is also admitted position that some items of the movable property seized by the investigating agency have been deposited in the Court. The items of movable properties found in the actual possession of the petitioner and now deposited in the Court are required to be attached by actual seizure. The procedure for attachment of movable property in possession of the judgment debtor is given in Order 21, Rule 43 of the Civil Procedure Code. The movable property other than agricultural produce in the possession of judgment debtor is required to be attached by actual seizure and the attaching officer shall keep the property in his own custody or in the custody of one of his subordinates. In this particular case, the items of movable properties shown in the Schedule have been seized by the investigating agency and deposited in the Court. There is actual seizure of the movable property which is deposited in the Court. 13. The crime has been registered on 7-10-1987. Thereafter the Investigating Officer seized the movable property found in possession of the petitioner and deposited the said movable property in the Court on 6-11-1987. Practically for a period of one year, nothing was done. The application for attachment of the property was presented on 4-11-1988. 13. The crime has been registered on 7-10-1987. Thereafter the Investigating Officer seized the movable property found in possession of the petitioner and deposited the said movable property in the Court on 6-11-1987. Practically for a period of one year, nothing was done. The application for attachment of the property was presented on 4-11-1988. The charge-sheet was not filed in the Court when the application for attachment dated 4-11-1988 was submitted. The charge-sheet came to be submitted on 15-1-1991. The Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad passed impugned order of attachment on 18-11-1991. At the costs of repetition, I would like to mention that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has observed in the order that the movable property has been already attached by the Investigating Officer and proposed to pass attachment order only in respect of immovable properties described at Sr. Nos. 1 to 3 of the Schedule. If regard is had to the chronological events referred to above, it cannot be said that the order of attachment of movable property falls within the mischief of provisions of the Ordinance of 1944. In fact, no order of attachment of movable property is passed under any of the provisions of the Ordinance of 1944. The Investigating Officer has seized the movable property by virtue of section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Under the circumstances, section 10 of the Ordinance of 1944 cannot be pressed into service so far as movable property found in possession of the petitioner is concerned. 14. From perusal of the schedule annexed to the application for attachment of the property, it is seen that the petitioner has invested certain amounts in five year postal recurring deposits. The petitioner has also deposited certain amounts in State Bank of India, Branch at Kranti Chowk, Aurangabad and State Bank of Hyderabad, Branch at Aurangabad. The petitioner has kept certain amounts in fixed deposit in the name of his wife and daughter. The petitioner has his saving accounts in State Bank of Hyderabad, Branch at Shahagunj, Aurangabad and State Bank of India, Branch at Kranti Chowk, Aurangabad. The Investigating Officer has seized only documents i.e., F.D. Receipts, pass-books of several banks and R.D. Accounts. The money kept in banks is not in fact in possession of the petitioner. The petitioner has his saving accounts in State Bank of Hyderabad, Branch at Shahagunj, Aurangabad and State Bank of India, Branch at Kranti Chowk, Aurangabad. The Investigating Officer has seized only documents i.e., F.D. Receipts, pass-books of several banks and R.D. Accounts. The money kept in banks is not in fact in possession of the petitioner. The procedure for attachment of movable property not in possession of the judgment debtor is given in Order 21, Rule 46 of the Civil Procedure Code. In such case, the attachment shall be made by written order prohibiting the creditor from recovering the debt and the debtor from making payment thereof until the further order of the Court. The written order prohibiting the person in possession of the movable property from giving it to the judgment debtor is also necessary. 15. By the way, I would like to state that the Bank account is a property within the meaning of section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Police Officer in the course of investigating can seize or prohibit operation of the bank account and postal account. In this behalf, a reference with profit can be made to the case of (State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Niyogi)1, 1999 Cri.L.J. 4305. The Single Judge of this Court had earlier held that the Bank account of an accused in corruption case or bank account of any relation of the accused cannot be held to be property within the meaning of section 102 of Criminal Procedure Code and, therefore, the Investigating Officer has no powers either to seize the said bank account or to issue any prohibitory order prohibiting operation of the bank account. The State of Maharashtra challenged the correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. The Supreme Court has held that the bank account of the accused or any of his relations is a property within the meaning of section 102 of Criminal Procedure Code and the Police Officer in course of investigation, can seize or prohibit operation of the said account, if such assets have direct links with the commission of the offence for which the Police Officer is investigating into. 16. The learned A.P.P. Shri Gaikwad has not brought to my notice that the Investigating Officer has seized the bank accounts or postal accounts under section 102 of Criminal Procedure Code. 16. The learned A.P.P. Shri Gaikwad has not brought to my notice that the Investigating Officer has seized the bank accounts or postal accounts under section 102 of Criminal Procedure Code. He is unable to point out that the Investigating Officer has issued directions to the concerned bank officers and concerned Post Master prohibiting the bank and postal accounts of the petitioner and his relatives from being operated upon. In the absence of actual seizure of the bank accounts and the postal account, it cannot be said that the movable property in possession of the bank and Post Office has been properly and legally seized. Mere seizure of documents in the nature of F.D.R., pass books of several banks and R.D. Accounts is not sufficient in order to attract the legal concept of seizure. The Investigating Officer is required to seize the bank accounts by issuing a prohibitory order. Unless the bank account or postal account is actually seized by issuing prohibitory order against the concerned officers of the banks and Post Office, it cannot be said that the money kept in the bank and Post Office is duly seized. Under the circumstances, I find considerable substance in the grievance made by learned Advocate Shri Phatak for the petitioner. In the result, the movable property i.e. Item Nos. 4 to 10 of the Schedule is liable to be returned back to the petitioner. 17. The movable properties described at Sr. Nos. 11 to 66 of the Schedule were actually found in possession of the petitioner. The Investigating Officer has seized these items of movable properties and deposited these items of movable property in the Court of C.J.M., Aurangabad. This seizure clearly falls within the ambit of section 102 of Criminal Procedure Code. The Investigating Officer has power to seize the property found in possession of the accused if it is revealed that it has got some nexus with the commission of offence. At the costs of repetition, I would like to say that so far as movable property is concerned, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad did not pass any attachment order under the provisions of the Ordinance of 1944. Under the circumstances, the question of application of section 10 of the Ordinance of 1944 is out of consideration. At the costs of repetition, I would like to say that so far as movable property is concerned, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad did not pass any attachment order under the provisions of the Ordinance of 1944. Under the circumstances, the question of application of section 10 of the Ordinance of 1944 is out of consideration. Thus the movable property is seized by the Investigating Officer by virtue of section 102 of Criminal Procedure Code that too, by actual seizure. Under the circumstances, the attachment of movable properties described at Sr. Nos. 11 to 66 of the Schedule cannot be revoked or withdrawn. The petitioner is not, therefore, entitled to ask restoration of the movable properties described at Sr. Nos. 11 to 66. 18. The impugned order of attachment dated 18-11-1991 is in fact mere paper attachment order. Mere attachment on paper is not sufficient. The property must be dealt with at least by making an explicit order prohibiting the parties from dealing with the property. In the instant case, there is no order of attachment as such. The immovable properties described at Sr. Nos. 1 to 3 of the Schedule are required to be attached as per the procedure laid down in Order 21, Rule 54 of the Civil Procedure Code. If the immovable property is to be attached, the attachment shall be made by an order prohibiting the judgment debtor from transferring or charging the property in any way and all persons from taking any benefit from such transfer or charge. In addition to the prohibitory order, the order with regard to attachment of the immovable property shall be proclaimed at some place on or adjacent to such property by beat of drum or other customary mode and the copy of the order shall be affixed at a conspicuous part of the property and upon a conspicuous part of the Court house. On account of failure to attach the immovable property as per the procedure laid down in Order 21, Rule 54 of the Civil Procedure Code, the order dated 18-11-1991 does not assume the legal character of attachment order. 19. A reference with profit can be made to the case of (A.T.K.P.L.M. Muthiah Chetti v. Palaniappa Chetti)2, A.I.R. 1928 P.C. 139. On account of failure to attach the immovable property as per the procedure laid down in Order 21, Rule 54 of the Civil Procedure Code, the order dated 18-11-1991 does not assume the legal character of attachment order. 19. A reference with profit can be made to the case of (A.T.K.P.L.M. Muthiah Chetti v. Palaniappa Chetti)2, A.I.R. 1928 P.C. 139. The Privy Council after taking into consideration the provisions of Order 21, Rule 54 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, observed that the order is one thing and the attachment is another. No property can be declared to be attached unless first the order for attachment has been issued and secondly in execution of that order, the other things prescribed by the rules in the Code have been done. 20. Similar point was raised in the case of (Mahadev Vasudeo v. Janaksingh Saigal)3, A.I.R. 1954 Bombay 251. The Division Bench of this Court has also reiterated the same view. In the said case, the Calcutta High Court on an application for attachment before judgment passed order of ad interim attachment and provided that till disposal of the said application, a writ of attachment to issue out of and under the seal of High Court commanding the Sheriff of Calcutta to attach the monthly instalments of Rs. 3000/- payable by defendant M to the defendant J under the compromise of settlement filed in the previous suit. The Division Bench observed that the High Court of Calcutta did not contemplate that this order itself would operate as an attachment. All that the High Court wanted to do was to direct the Sheriff to issue a warrant of attachment which would effectuate the attachment. Reading the order as a whole, it did not constitute an order under Order 21, Rule 54. It was, as it were, an inchoate attachment which had to be completed and effectuated by something which had to be done at the instance of the plaintiff and through the instrumentality of the Sheriff of Calcutta. 21. It is clear from the language of Order 21, Rule 54 of Civil Procedure Code that the conditions for attachment of immovable property are mandatory in nature and, therefore, it is necessary for the attachment to be effective, the strict compliance is very much necessary. If the mandatory conditions are not complied with, there is no attachment in the eye of law. If the mandatory conditions are not complied with, there is no attachment in the eye of law. In the instant case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad allowed the application for attachment and directed that the property mentioned in the schedule is allowed to be attached following the procedure as laid down in Order 21, Rule 54 of the Civil Procedure Code. After this order, nothing is done. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the immovable property described at Sr. Nos. 1 to 3 of the Schedule are under legal attachment. 22. This takes me to consider the half hearted objection with regard to maintainability of this writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has not exhausted the remedy of appeal as provided under section 11 of the Ordinance of 1944. No doubt, remedy of appeal is provided by section 11 of the Ordinance of 1944. This remedy of appeal is to be exhausted only in certain specified cases. Section 11 of the Ordinance of 1944 read as under :- “11. Appeals.---(1) The State Government or, as the case may be, the Central Government or any person who has shown cause under section 4 or section 6 or has made an objection under section 4 or has made an application under section 8 or section 9 if aggrieved by any order of the District Judge under any of the foregoing provisions of this Ordinance, may appeal to the High Court within thirty days from the date on which the order complained against was passed. (2) Upon any appeal under this section, the High Court, may, after giving such parties as it thinks proper an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders as it thinks fit. (3) Until an appeal under this section is finally disposed of by the High Court, no Court shall, otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of section 8 or section 13, order the withdrawal or suspension of any order of attachment to which the appeal relates.” 23. Any person who has shown cause under section 4 or under section 6 or has raised an objection under section 4 or has made an application under section 8 or under section 9, if aggrieved by any order of the District Judge under any of the foregoing provisions of the Ordinance of 1944, may prefer an appeal to the High Court. In this particular case, no ad interim attachment order is passed under section 4. The question of raising an objection under section 4 to ad interim attachment order, therefore, does not arise. The question of attachment of property of mala fide transferees as contemplated under section 6 of the Ordinance of 1944, is not involved in this matter. The petitioner has not filed any application under section 8 of the Ordinance of 1944. Similarly, the person interested in the property attached has not moved the District Judge under section 9 of the Ordinance of 1944. Under the circumstances, the objection raised by learned A.P.P. Shri Gaikwad with regard to maintainability of the writ petition is liable to be rejected. 24. By the way, I would like to mention that there is a reference in section 10 of the Ordinance of 1944 with regard to withdrawal of the attachment of property. Therefore, the petitioner can very well move the Court for withdrawal of the attachment. In fact, he moved the Special Judge for withdrawal of the attachment of property. 25. This takes me to consider the objection with regard to latches. In fact the grievance with regard to latches does not hold any water. The petitioner and even the State to some extent linked under wrong impression that the order dated 18-11-1991 is an order of attachment. There was no legal and valid attachment of property. If this whole issue is looked at from this angle, then the grievance with regard to latches does not stand to reason. The application for withdrawal of the attachment has been rejected by the Special Judge on 6-8-1997. Immediately thereafter the present petitioner filed this criminal writ petition and challenged both the orders. 26. I am at the fag end of my judgment. I am constrained to observe that the Additional Sessions Judge, has passed the order dated 18-11-1991, without application of mind. He did not take pains to go through the prayers made in the application for attachment and also the relevant provisions of sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Ordinance of 1944. The application submitted under section 3 of the Ordinance of 1944 is required to be dealt with very promptly. In appropriate cases the Court is also expected to pass ad interim attachment order without any delay. The application submitted under section 3 of the Ordinance of 1944 is required to be dealt with very promptly. In appropriate cases the Court is also expected to pass ad interim attachment order without any delay. In the instant case, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Aurangabad submitted an application for attachment under section 3 of the Ordinance of 1944 on 4-11-1988. The Additional Sessions Judge should have attended the said application very promptly. It is clearly seen from the record that the learned Additional Sessions Judge passed ineffective order of attachment on 18-11-1991 on the application which was submitted on 4-11-1998. The learned Additional Sessions Judge dealt with the application for attachment with a snail's speed, which is highly objectionable. 27. In the result, the criminal writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned orders dated 18-11-1991 and 6-8-1997 are hereby quashed and set aside. The immovable properties described at Sr. Nos. 1 to 3 of the Schedule are hereby released from the so called attachment order and they be restored to the petitioner. Similarly, the movable properties described at Sr. Nos. 4 to 10 of the Schedule be returned to the petitioner. The petitioner is free to operate the bank accounts and postal account. The prayer of the petitioner for restoration of movable properties described at Sr. Nos. 11 to 66 of the Schedule, however, stands rejected. Rule is made partly absolute accordingly. Criminal writ petition partly allowed. -----