The central legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory nature of the procedure for issuing a proclamation under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the legal sanctity of the proclamation.

1. This revision is filed against the Judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udgir, dated 9th April, 2009, allowing the appeal filed under Section 86 of Code of Criminal Procedure and setting aside attachment and sale of certain property belonging to the respondent No.2. The facts leading to the impugned Judgment, in short, can be narrated as under :

2. The respondent No.2 is a proprietor of respondent No.1. Both of them are accused in Criminal Case No. 1690 of 2004, which was filed by the respondent No.5. It was a case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The case was filed in 2004. Admittedly, the respondent No.2, after his release on bail in the case, remained absent and the non-bailable-warrants were issued against him repeatedly. Ultimately, on 1st February, 2006, a notice to his surety was given. The surety appeared before the Court and sought time to produce respondent No.2. On 1st March, 2006, at the request of the respondent No.5 / the complainant, the learned Magistrate ordered to issue proclamation under Section 82 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the respondent No.2.

3. It appears from the record that the proclamation was published in a newspaper on 24th May, 2006. The record however does not show the original proclamation. The record also shows that after order for issuance of proclamation, mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 82 of Code of Criminal Procedure was not followed. Section 82 of Code of Criminal Procedure reads as under :

82. Proclamation for person absconding.

(1) If Any court has reason to believe (whether after taking evidence or not) that any person against whom a warrant has been issued by it has absconded or is concealing himself so that such warrant cannot be executed, such court may publish a written proclamation requiring him to appear at a specific place and at a specified time not less than thirty days from the date of publishing such proclamation.

(2) The proclamation shall be published as follows-

(i) (a) It shall be publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which such person ordinarily resides;

(b) It shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or home-stead in which such person ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of such town or village;

(c) A copy thereof shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the Court house,

(ii) The court may also, if it thinks fit, direct a copy of the proclamation to be published in a daily newspaper circulating in the place in which such person ordinarily resides.

(3) A statement in writing by the court issuing the proclamation to the effect that the proclamation was duly published on a specified day, in the manner specified in Clause

(i) of sub-section (2), shall be conclusive evidence that the requirements of this section have been complied with, and that the proclamation was published on such day.

4. Sub-section (2) of this Section requires the Magistrate not only to issue a proclamation directing the accused to appear before him giving time which should not be less than 30 days, but it is also incumbent upon the Magistrate to get the proclamation publicly read out at the town where the accused ordinarily resided, and, in addition to this, it is also necessary to get the proclamation affixed on the conspicuous part of the house of the accused or a place in his town and also at a conspicuous part of the Court house. In addition to this, the learned Magistrate, if he thinks fit, would also publish a copy of the proclamation in a newspaper circulated in the area. In addition to this, the learned Magistrate is expected to make a statement in writing to the effect that the proclamation was duly published in the manner specified above. Admittedly, the learned Magistrate, in this case, did not issue such statement in writing.

5. It further appears from the record that thereafter the learned Magistrate passed an order of attachment of the property in qu