The issuance of warrants and proclamations against an accused must comply with established legal requirements; failure to do so results in quashing those orders.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard the parties.

2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash five different orders passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Bermo at Tenughat in connection with Forest Case No. 15 of 2011.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner is an accused of the said Forest Case No. 15 of 2011 in which cognizance has been taken by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat vide order dated 26.03.2012 against the petitioners of having committed the offences punishable under Section 33 , 41 & 42 of the Indian FOREST ACT , 1927. Consequent upon cognizance, summons was issued to the petitioner but without receipt of the service report of the summon issued to the petitioner, vide order dated 16.10.2012, the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Bermo at Tenughat issued bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner. In the said case, on 21.06.2014, without the execution report of the bailable warrant of arrest, having been received in the court, the learned Judicial Magistrate directed for issue of non-bailable warrant of arrest inter-alia against the petitioner. Vide order dated 04.02.2018/05.02.2018 without recording any satisfaction that the petitioner is absconding and evading his arrest and without fixing any time or place for appearance of the accused person of the case, the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. was directed to be issued. On 06.02.2019, in the said case, without any execution report of the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C., the process under Section 83 Cr.P.C. was issued. On 26.04.2019, in the said case, the petitioner was declared permanent absconder by the concerned Judicial Magistrate and the learned Judicial Magistrate directed deposit of the case record in the record room.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Magistrate has committed a grave illegality by issuing the bailable warrant of arrest vide order dated 16.10.2012 in the said case without the service report of the notice issued to the petitioner. Similarly, without receiving the execution report of the bailable warrant of arrest, non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner illegally, as the learned Magistrate ought not have issued the non-bailable warrant of arrest, before receipt of the execution report of the bailable warrant of arrest. It is next submitted that the learned Magistrate has also committed a grave error by issuing the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. without following the due process of law and without recording the satisfaction that the petitioner is absconding or concealing himself to evade his arrest; which is a sine qua non for issuing the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. that too without mentioning any time and place for appearance of the petitioner. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that without any material available in the record that the proclamation issued against the petitioner has been made, the learned Judicial Magistrate committed a grave illegality by issuing the process for attachment of the property of the petitioner under Section 83 of Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that so far as the order dated 26.04.2019 is concerned, the condition precedent for declaring a person absconder and issuing permanent warrant of arrest is that, it must be proved before the court concerned, that the accused has absconded and there is no immediate prospect of arresting him bu