SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Bom) 1543

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Sandeep K. Shinde J, J.
Vinay Ramnarayan Singh @ Bablu - Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 4551 of 2021
Decided On : 01-12-2021

Advocates appeared:
Aniket Nikam, Advocate, Shekhar Jagtap, Advocate, Girish Jain, Advocate, Shekhar Jagtap, Advocate, Y.M. Nakhawa, Advocate

Strict adherence to the procedural requirements of Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code is essential, and any deviation from the specified period in the proclamation may render it invalid.

Headnote:

Section 82 - Criminal Procedure Code - [Sections 384, 385, 388, 389] - The court discussed the provisions of Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code, emphasizing the requirement for a person to appear at a specified place and time not less than thirty days from the date of publishing such proclamation. The court highlighted the difference between 'not less than thirty days' and 'within thirty days', and emphasized the strict adherence to the procedural requirements of Section 82. The court also referred to the case of Rammi Paramjeetsingh Rajput v. State of Maharashtra to support its interpretation of Section 82.

Fact of the Case:

The applicant sought pre-arrest protection after being accused of offenses under Sections 384, 385, 388, and 389 of the Indian Penal Code. The court issued a proclamation requiring the appearance of the applicant within 30 days, which was contrary to the mandate of Section 82.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the proclamation issued in FORM No.4 was contrary to the mandate of Section 82 and quashed and set it aside.

Issues: The issues involved the interpretation and application of Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code, specifically regarding the period specified in the proclamation and the strict adherence to procedural requirements.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the strict interpretation of Section 82, emphasizing the requirement for a person to appear at a specified place and time not less than thirty days from the date of publishing such proclamation.

Final Decision: The court quashed and set aside the order publishing the proclamation against the applicant.

JUDGMENT

Sandeep K. Shinde, J. - This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, assails the order dated 17th November, 2021 in Crime No.71/2021 and a proclamation requiring the appearance of the petitioner issued in exercise of powers under Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

2. Heard Mr. Nikam, learned Cousel for the petitioner and learned APP for State.

3. Applicant is accused in Crime No.71/2021 dated 20 th August, 2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 384, 385, 388 and 389 of the Indian Penal Code. On 21st August, 2021 a notice under Section 41A of the Criminal Procedure Code, was issued. However, it was not responded by the applicant. Instead, applicant sought pre-arrest protection. It was declined by the learned Sessions Court, Mumbai on 27th September, 2021. Whereafter the applicant, moved this Court on 20th October, 2021 seeking pre-arrest protection. On 15th November, 2021 intimation was posted to the Investigating Officer that the pre-arrest protection application was filed on 20th October, 2021 in the High Court. On the same day i.e. on 15th November, 2021 Investigating Officer moved the trial Court to seek issue of proclamation under Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code, against the applicant. It appears, the applicant sought circulation of Anticipatory Bail Application on 16th November, 2021. Application was listed on 17th November, 2021. None appeared for the applicant on that date. On the same day i.e. on 17th November, 2021 another application was moved seeking issuance of proclamation against applicant and two co-accused. The learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate upon perusing the application, record and Affidavit of the Investigating Officer passed the following order :

"1. Application is allowed.

2. Issue written proclamation for appearance of accused Vinay Ramnarayan Singh @ Babaloo, Riyaz Siraj Bhati and accused Parambir Singh before this court as per Section 82 and FORM No.4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure."

4. Pursuant thereto, the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate issued a proclamation on 18th November, 2021, in FORM No.4, requiring applicant to appear before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 37th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai or before the Investigation Officer to answer the said complaint within 30 days from the date of publishing such proclamation. Mr. Nikam, learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that, requiring the accused to appear within 30 days was contrary to the mandate of Section 82, by which, the Court may require the accused to appear at a specified date and a specified time, not less than 30 days from the date of publication of such proclamation. (emphasis supplied)

5. To appreciate the contention of Mr. Nikam, let me reproduce the provisions of Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

"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 specified 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 homestead 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 C

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top