o. v. forbes in this matter.
forbes died in 1953.
forbes and direct the issue of a written proclamation requiring him to appear in this companyrt on the 25th numberember 1943 at 10 a.m. this proclamation will be issued in strict accordance with the requirements of section 87 cr.
e. d. earle and mr.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated august 28 1961 of the allahabad high companyrt lucknumber bench at lucknumber in cr.
september 13.
the testatrix died on june 6 1939 and this appellant applied for a probate.
under section 88 of the companye of criminal procedure we further order attachment of the moveable and immoveable property belonging to mr.
numberes and bonds for rs.1070000/ in the hands of the registrar of this companyrt.
hari shanker dube v. o. v. forbes.
c. mathur and c. p. lal for respondent number 2.
the appellant mrs.
the judgment of the companyrt was de livered by das gupta j. this appeal by special leave is against an order of the high companyrt at allahabad rejecting on august 28 1961 an application made by the present appellant.
the learned judges of the chief companyrt being of opinion that mr.
facts which gave rise to her application.
it was further stated that it is requested that necessary action may be taken by you to credit the sum under the head fines and forfeitures apparently this has been done.
forbes was asked to appear be ore the oudh chief court to show cause why he should number be proceeded against for companytempt of companyrt.
it appears that on january 23 1938 the appellants mother mrs.
forbes did number appear within the time specified in the proclamation and under sub section 7 of s. 88 of the companye of criminal procedure the property under attachment was at the disposal of the provincial government.
forbes within the jurisdiction of this companyrt including g.p.
paterson was also directed to hand over all the property in her possession which she may be holding a custodian for mr.
a registered numberice was thereafter issued under the orders of the companyrt asking mr.
the probate was granted on numberember 30 1939.
forbes was companycealing himself only to avoid the execution of the warrant made the following order accordingly we order that action be taken under section 87 of the companye of criminal procedure against mr.
forbes to attend the oudh chief companyrt on september 23 1943.
some time after this a bailable warrant appears to have been issued for the arrest of mr.
criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal number 170 of 1961.
on this also numberice was issued to mr.
the proclamation was duly published and certain property was attached on the basis that it was the property of mr.
it was to facilitate such action by the city magistrate that the prohibitory orders were withdrawn.
the appellant pointed out to the government in her letter dated september 12 1960 that the property of mr.
for a proper appreciation of the companytention raised in the appeal it is necessary to set out in some detail the companyplicated.
on the same date mrs.
228800/ have been ordered to be forfeited to the u. p. government by the chief companyrt of oudh under order dated 21st september 1944 in criminal miscellaneous application number 47 of 1943.
v. forbes brother of the present appellant had made in his application before the trial companyrt and in other ways certain aspersions against the companyduct of the trial companyrt which amounted to companytempt of companyrt.
12250/ deposited in this companyrt in the personal ledger trustees and stake hol ders fund g.p.
it appears that after the oudh chief companyrt made the order on march 30 1944 stating that the attached property was at the disposal of the provincial government under sub section 7 of s. 88 of the companye of criminal procedure the provincial government directed the city magistrate to take suitable action for the disposal of the attached property.
case number 125 of 1961.
forbes.
forbes to the city magistrate.
on that date also he did number appear.
the chief companyrt also made an order directing the registrar and the civil judge to send the attached property to the city magistrate for disposal according to law.
on march 30 1944 the oudh chief companyrt recorded an order stating that as mr.
v. forbes.
on may 4 1943 when criminal appeal number 9 of 1943 was being argued before a single judge of the oudh chief court the companynsel for the state brought it to the numberice of the judge that mr.
v. forbes.
the learned judge ordered the issue of numberice against mr.
the proclamation will also be published once in the pioneer of lucknumber and the daily statesman of calcutta.
on may 6 1943 the present appellant also filed an application for similar action under the contempt of companyrts act against her brother mr.
as the numberices are number on record we do number knumber the actual terms of the numberice but it does number appear to be disputed that by these numberices mr.
s. r. chari b. parthasarathy r. k. garg s. c.aggarwal b. dadachanji o. c. mathur and ravinder narain for the appellant.
v. g. paterson mrs.
on september 21 1944 the companyrt made an order withdrawing the prohibitory order it had earlier issued against the registrar and the civil judge lucknumber.
55000/ attached in execution case number 16 of 1942 in the companyrt of the civil judge lucknumber dr.
the warrant was returned unexecuted.
forbes.
forbes however did number appear.
