JUDGMENT(ORAL)

J.R. Midha, J.

The requirements of justice give an occasion for the development of new dimension of justice by evolving juristic principles for doing complete justice according to the current needs of the Society. The quest for justice in the process of administration of justice occasions the evolution of new dimensions of the justice. J.S. Verma, J., in his Article "New Dimensions of Justice", (1997) 3 SCC J-3 observed that:

"....Justice is the ideal to be achieved by Law. Justice is the goal of law. Law is a set of general rules applied in the administration of justice. Justice is in a cause on application of law to a particular case. Jurisprudence is the philosophy of law. Jurisprudence and Law have ultimately to be tested on the anvil of administration of justice. 'Law as it is', may fall short of 'Law as it ought to be' for doing complete justice in a cause. The gap between the two may be described as the field covered by Morality. There is no doubt that the development of the law is influenced by morals. The infusion of morality for reshaping the law is influenced by the principles of Equity and Natural Justice, as effective agencies of growth. The ideal State is when the rules of law satisfy the requirements of justice and the gap between the two is bridged. It is this attempt to bridge the gap which occasions the development of New Jurisprudence.

The existence of some gap between law and justice is recognized by the existing law itself. This is the reason for the recognition of inherent powers of the court by express provision made in the Code of Civil Procedure and the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Constitution of India by Article 142 expressly confers on the Supreme Court plenary powers for doing complete justice in any cause or matter before it. Such power in the court of last resort is recognition of the principle that in the justice delivery system, at the end point attempt must be made to do complete justice in every cause, if that result cannot be achieved by provisions of the enacted law. These powers are in addition to the discretionary powers of courts in certain areas where rigidity is considered inappropriate, e.g., equitable reliefs and Article 226 of the Constitution. ..."

2. The petitioners in both these cases were declared as Proclaimed Offenders without following due process of law. In CRL. A. 5328/2013, the learned Magistrate declared the petitioner as a proclaimed offender without satisfying himself as to the factum of service of notice upon the petitioner as respondent no. 2 was unable to furnish the complete address of the petitioner and the notices were not sent to the petitioner at the correct address. All addresses furnished by the respondent were found to be incorrect. In CRL. M. C. 4438/2013, the petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender but he was never served any summons/warrants. Vide judgment dated 07th January, 2021, this Court allowed the both petitions and quashed the impugned orders declaring the petitioners as "Proclaimed Offenders".

3. During the course of the hearing dated 27th November, 2013, Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, learned senior counsel present in Court in some other case pointed out that the orders under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as CrPC or the Code) were passed in a routine manner and guidelines are necessary to ensure that orders under Sections 82 and 83 CrPC are passed after following due process of law. It was suggested that guidelines be laid down by this Court in this regard.

4. Vide order dated 07th March, 2014, Mr. Surinder S. Rathi, Registrar, Delhi High Court, who was then posted in Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA) and had done extensive research on the subject, was requested to submit his research papers. Mr. Rathi submitted his research papers along with the draft of the suggested guidelines. As the matter progressed, Mr. Rathi submitted his first report which was considered by Delhi Police as well