Ad Interim Attachment Order Under Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944 Lapses Automatically After One Year If Cognizance Not Taken: Andhra Pradesh High Court

"The object of Section 10 of the Ordinance is to ensure a speedy investigation and filing of the charge sheet so that accused does not suffer the order of attachment for an undue long period and that period, in its wisdom, is fixed as one year by the legislature." Andhra Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling dated October 5, 2026, held that an order of ad interim attachment passed under the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944, automatically lapses after one year if the competent Court has not taken cognizance of the alleged scheduled offence and no application for extension has been filed by the State.

 A bench of Smt. Justice V. Sujatha observed that "the statutory lapse of the attachment order cannot be overridden by the conduct of the petitioner, as the statute unequivocally limits the validity of provisional attachments to one year unless specifically extended."

The case involved an official of the Endowments Department who was booked for alleged offences under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Following the registration of the FIR and a search, the government authorized the attachment of properties worth over Rs. 2.17 crore. The Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases passed an ad interim attachment order on July 17, 2019. Despite the lapse of time, no cognizance of the offence was taken, and the Special Court subsequently made the attachment absolute on December 20, 2019, leading the petitioner to approach the High Court.

The primary issue before the Court was whether an ad interim attachment order remains in force beyond one year under Section 10 of the 1944 Ordinance in the absence of cognizance of the offence or a formal extension order. The Court was further required to determine whether a Special Court could suo motu make an ad interim attachment order absolute after the statutory period of one year had already expired.

Statutory Lapse of Attachment

The Court emphasized that Section 10 of the Ordinance provides a clear legislative timeline for the subsistence of an attachment order. If no Court has taken cognizance of the alleged scheduled offence at the time the attachment is applied for, the order remains in force for only one year. The Court clarified that this period can be extended only upon an application by the agent of the State or Central Government, demonstrating a "just and proper" cause for the extension.

Mandatory Compliance with Section 10

The Court noted that the legislative intent behind Section 10 is to prevent the investigating agency from keeping an individual's assets under indefinite attachment without showing sufficient progress in the criminal proceedings. By failing to take cognizance or seek an extension within the statutory one-year window, the prosecution effectively allows the attachment to lapse by operation of law. The Court rejected the argument that the attachment could be made absolute suo motu, asserting that the power to continue the attachment beyond the prescribed period must be exercised strictly in the manner contemplated by the statute.

Court Rejects Suo Motu Extension

The High Court held that the trial court erred in making the order absolute on December 20, 2019, as the statutory period of one year from the original order dated July 17, 2019, had not been subject to any valid extension. The Court stated, "Once the statutory period of one year expired without taking cognizance and without there being any application by the State seeking extension of attachment as contemplated under Section 10 of the Ordinance, the ad interim attachment order would be lapsed by operation of law."

Liberty to File Fresh Application

While setting aside the order of the Special Judge, the High Court clarified that its ruling does not grant the petitioner permanent immunity from attachment. The Court granted the respondents liberty to file a fresh application seeking reattachment of the properties, provided they follow the due process of law. This ensures that the investigating agency remains accountable for timely proceedings while preserving the State's power to secure assets derived from alleged corruption, provided the legal requirements are met.

The High Court allowed the writ petition in part, setting aside the order of the Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Rajahmahendravaram, as the attachment had ceased to exist by operation of law. This judgment reinforces the principle that procedural timelines in special statutes, such as the 1944 Ordinance, are designed to balance the interests of effective prosecution against the protection of property rights from indefinite legal uncertainty.

Date of Decision: 05 October 2026