Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 · Chapter VI: Processes to Compel Appearance · C.–Proclamation and attachment
Section 83: Attachment of property of person absconding
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to matters and proceedings from before that date, as the repealing law provides.
In plain words
After issuing a proclamation, a court can, recording its reasons, order attachment of the proclaimed person's movable or immovable property. If they are about to dispose of or remove their property, attachment can be ordered at the same time as the proclamation.
- Movable property is attached by seizure, appointing a receiver, or a written order against delivery. Immovable property is attached by taking possession, a receiver, or an order against paying rent, and revenue-paying land through the Collector.
- Livestock or perishable property can be sold immediately.
A simplified explanation, prepared with AI assistance from the official text below and checked automatically against it for numbers and cross-references. The official text is the law and prevails over this summary. Not legal advice.
Official text
(1) The Court issuing a proclamation under section 82 may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, at any time after the issue of the proclamation, order the attachment of any property, movable or immovable, or both, belonging to the proclaimed person:
Provided that where at the time of the issue of the proclamation the Court is satisfied, by affidavit or otherwise, that the person in relation to whom the proclamation is to be issued,—
(a) is about to dispose of the whole or any part of his property, or
(b) is about to remove the whole or any part of his property from the local jurisdiction of the Court, it may order the attachment simultaneously with the issue of the proclamation.
(2) Such order shall authorise the attachment of any property belonging to such person within the district in which it is made; and it shall authorise the attachment of any property belonging to such person without such district when endorsed by the District Magistrate within whose district such property is situate.
(3) If the property ordered to be attached is a debt or other movable property, the attachment under this section shall be made—
(a) by seizure; or
(b) by the appointment of a receiver; or
(c) by an order in writing prohibiting the delivery of such property to the proclaimed person or to any one on his behalf; or
(d) by all or any two of such methods, as the Court thinks fit.
(4) If the property ordered to be attached is immovable, the attachment under this section shall, in the case of land paying revenue to the State Government, be made through the Collector of the district in which the land is situate, and in all other cases—
(a) by taking possession; or
(b) by the appointment of a receiver; or
(c) by an order in writing prohibiting the payment of rent on delivery of property to the proclaimed person or to any one on his behalf; or
(d) by all or any two of such methods, as the Court thinks fit.
(5) If the property ordered to be attached consists of live-stock or is of a perishable nature, the Court may, if it thinks it expedient, order immediate sale thereof, and in such case the proceeds of the sale shall abide the order of the Court.
(6) The powers, duties and liabilities of a receiver appointed under this section shall be the same as those of a receiver appointed under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908).
Corresponding sections were matched by comparing the wording of both official texts, and for the IPC and BNS, also against a published correspondence table. Wording, punishments and structure often changed, so read both sections before relying on the match.
Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here. Official text on India Code.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 83
-
Raj Kumar @ Bheema v. State of NCT of Delhi
Appellant-accused was convicted for the offence punishable u/s.302 IPC. The High Court further affirmed the order on sentence dated 20.02.2021, whereby the accused-appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for…
-
Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Aditya Sarda
Matter pertains to the sustainability of orders passed by the High Court granting anticipatory bail to respondents accused of serious economic offences, and avoiding execution of summons or warrants, disobeying the…
-
Om Prakash Yadav v. Niranjan Kumar Upadhyay & Ors.
Issue arose as regards whether in the absence of the grant of sanction for prosecution u/s.197 CrPC, the CJM, Firozabad could have taken cognizance of the charge sheets against the respondents; and whether the offence…
- Pawan Gupta v. Union of India & Anr
- Amandeep Gill & Anr v. The State Govt of NCT of Delhi
- Badakulu Ladu @ Sushant v. State
- Anjali and Other v. Union of India and Others
- Lakshay Jaiswal v. State(Nct of Delhi) and Anr
- Lakshay Jaiswal v. State(Nct of Delhi) and Anr
- Satish Kumar v. The State (Govt. of Nct, Delhi)
-
Tarsem Lal v. Directorate of Enforcement Jalandhar Zonal Office
(a) Whether the complaint filed u/s.44(1)(b) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 will be governed by sections 200 to 205 of the CrPC; (b) If the accused was not arrested by the ED till the filing of the…
-
Sukhpal Singh v. NCT of Delhi
Appellant was convicted u/s.302, Penal Code, 1860 for the murder of his wife. Courts below whether justified in holding that the statement of Complainant-PW-1 recorded in proceedings u/s.299, Code of Criminal Procedure,…
- Margub Beg v. State(Govt of NCT Delhi)
- Rajeev Jhawar v. Directorate of Enforcement
-
Srikant Upadhyay & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr.
Whether there could be any bar on the Trial Court for proceeding u/s. 82 Cr.P.C., merely because an anticipatory application for bail has been filed or because such an application was adjourned without passing any…
- Kushal Rathi v. State
- Naveen Yadav v. State
- Suraj Prakash v. State
- Mansher v. The State of N.C.T. of Delhi Through Its Station House Officer Police Station Crime Branch Delhi
- Lokesh Dhingra v. The State of N.C.T. of Delhi Through Its Station House Officer Police Station Crime Branch New Delhi
- Mukesh Prasad Singh & Anr v. Managing Director, Punjab National Bank
- Mukesh Prasad Singh & Anr v. Punjab National Bank
- Rekha Rani v. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr & Anr
- Yash Dev Singh Sejwal v. The State (Govt. of NCT Fo Delhi) and Anr
- Vishal Gupta @ Vishal Mahajan v. State
- Satender Solanki v. State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr
- Jaspal v. State
- Vinod Kumar v. State (Gnct of Delhi)
- Prem Shankar Prasad v. The State of Bihar & Anr.
- Rahul v. State of Haryana
- Nevada Properties Private Limited Through Its Director v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.
- Pankaj Jain v. Union of India & Anr.
- State of Bihar v. Rajballav Prasad@ Rajballav Pp. Yadav@ Rajballabh Yadav
- Licil Antony v. State of Kerala&Anr.
- Subhash Popatlal Dave v. Union of India & Anr.
- M. Manohar Reddy & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
- Satya Narayana Tiwari and Anr. v. State of U.P.
- Virender Prasad Singh v. Rajesh Bhardwaj & Ors.
- Monica v. Satish Sharma & Anr.
- Sarvesh Narain Shukla v. Daroga Singh & Ors.
- Gajanand Agarwal v. State of Orissa and Anr.
- Virendra Kumar v. State of U.P.
- Gajanand Agarwal v. State of Orissa and Ors.
- Vinod K. Chawla v. U.O.I. and Ors.
- Ashfaq v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
- Arun Shankar Shukla v. State of U.P. and Ors.
- P.M. Hari Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.
- Sharad Kumar Tyagi v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
- State of U.P. v. Anil Singh