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

2004 Supreme(Guj) 359

Gujarat High Court
Judgename :C.K.BUCH
SAVITABEN GOVINDBHAI PATEL - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT - Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION85 of 2004
Decided On : 06/17/2004

Advocates Appeared: ABHAY SINGH, Nandini Joshi, S.V.RAJU

Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Sections 82 and 83 — Proclamation for person absconding — Notification requiring accused to surrender within 30 days — It did not give clear “30 days" contemplated u/s. 82 Cr.P.C. and provision was mandatory — Notification was unsustainable — Filing of an anticipatory bail application by petitioner-accused through their advocate could not be said to be an appearance of petitioner-accused in competent Court — Even when proclamation had been issued in complaint case and Magistrate had sent it for investigation u/s. 156(3) Cr.P.C. even if notification was found bad in law, petitioner accused could be directed by High Court to surrender or appear before concerned Court. (Paras 6 & 8 to 10)

       Result: Revision disposed of.

       

C. K. BUCH, J.

( 1 ) THE present Revision Application has been preferred, against the issuance of notification under section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) by the learned metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 5, Meghaninagar, ahmedabad; directing all the petitioners (orig. accused) of the Criminal Case i. e. M-Case No. 2/03, pending under investigation with the Karanj Police Station of Ahmedabad city, to appear before the said Court; invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Section 401 r/w. Sections 397 and 482 of the Code.

( 2 ) THE learned counsel Mr. S. V. Raju, appearing on behalf of Mr. A. P. Shah, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused, has pointed out the basic infirmities in the notification; that the petitioners are not given 30 exclusive days to surrender and that by itself makes the notification ineffective and invalid and, therefore, no proceedings under Section 82 of the code can be initiated. According to petitioners, the notification under challenge has been issued pursuant to one application dated 16th January, 2004 given by the investigating Officer i. e. the Police Sub-Inspector, pattharkuva Chowky, Ahmedabad. According to the petitioners, the said application has been given by the said Police Sub-Inspector with an ulterior motive, though the petitioners are not absconding. At this stage, it would be beneficial to reproduce the relevant Sections 82 and 83 of the 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 part 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 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 subsection (2) shall be conclusive evidence that the requirements of this section have been complied with, and that the proclamation was published on such day. ""83. Attachment of property of person absconding.- (1) The Court issuing a proclamation under Sec. 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 the 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 situated. (3) If the property ordered to be attached is a debt or other movable property, the attach













Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top