The judgment references multiple precedents to reinforce the necessity of strict adherence to procedural norms:

• Taylor v. Taylor (1876): Emphasized that powers granted by law must be exercised precisely as prescribed.
• Nazir Ahmed Accused v. The Emperor (Judicial Committee): Upheld the principle that deviation from statutory procedures nullifies legal actions.
• Quebec Railway Light, Heat and Power Co. Ltd. v. Vandry (AIR 1920 PC 181): Lord Sumner highlighted the imperiousness of legislative intent. "Effect must be given, if possible, to all the words used, for the legislature is deemed not to waste its words or to say anything in vain."
• K.R Easwaramurthi Goundan v. The King-Emperor (71 Ind App 83): Lord Wright clarified that statutory provisions do not override foundational legal requirements such as those in the Evidence Act.
• Hukumchand Boid v. Kamalanand Singh (1906): Affirmed the High Court's inherent jurisdiction to rectify miscarriages of justice.

The court meticulously dissected the procedural steps undertaken during the seizure and attachment of the petitioner’s property, focusing on Sections 87(1) and 87(2) of the CPC:

• Section 87(1) CPC: Requires a "reason to believe" that the accused has absconded or is concealing themselves, justifying the issuance of a proclamation. The court found that the Magistrate had not satisfactorily established this belief before proceeding.
• Section 87(2) CPC: Mandates specific procedures for publication of the proclamation, including affixing copies to the accused’s residence or a conspicuous part of the courthouse. The process in this case failed to fully comply, particularly lacking an appropriate display at the courthouse.
• Section 87(3) CPC: Although it provides a conclusive presumption of proper publication upon a court statement, the court ruled that this does not override detailed evidentiary requirements, especially under the Evidence Act.

The High Court concluded that the Magistrate's failure to adhere strictly to these procedural mandates rendered the seizure and subsequent orders null and void.

This judgment underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding procedural integrity, especially in the execution of warrants and attachments. It serves as a stern reminder that:

• Authority figures must strictly follow statutory procedures to ensure the protection of individual rights.
• Non-conformance to established legal procedures can lead to the annulment of judicial orders.
• Higher courts possess the inherent jurisdiction to review and rectify lower court decisions that contravene legal protocols.

Future cases involving similar attachments or seizures will likely reference this judgment to argue the necessity of procedural adherence.

Section 87 CPC pertains to the procedure for issuing proclamations and attachments against individuals suspected of evading arrest. Key provisions include:

• Sub-section (1): Empowerment to issue a proclamation only when there is a justified reason to believe that the individual has absconded or is hiding.
• Sub-section (2): Detailed requirements for the publication of the proclamation, ensuring it is sufficiently disseminated.
• Sub-section (3): Presumes proper publication if the court certifies it, but does not eliminate the need for compliance with evidentiary standards.

These are legal orders aimed at apprehending an individual and securing assets to ensure compliance with legal proceedings. The writ of proclamation serves as a formal announcement urging the individual to appear in court, while the writ of attachment allows for the seizure of property to prevent its dissipation.

This refers to the power of higher courts to review and alter the decisions of lower courts to ensure justice and legal correctness. In this case, the High Court exercised its revisional jurisdiction to overturn the Magistrate's orders due to procedural lapses.