Strict adherence to the mandatory provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. for issuing a proclamation is essential, and failure to comply with these provisions can render the proclamation procedurally defective.

JUDGMENT

Vikas Suri, J. - This is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying for quashing of the impugned order dated 18.11.2002 (Annexure P-6), whereby the petitioner-Sarabjit Singh alias Nabi was declared proclaimed person in case FIR No.22 dated 09.07.2000 under Section 160 IPC, registered at Police Station Taraori, District Karnal, in contravention to the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C.

2. The facts as noticed in the paper book are that the above noted FIR came to be registered on the statement of Head Constable Dalip Singh, whereby he alleged that three young persons were quarrelling with each other on the main Nidana Road and thereby causing disturbance to public peace. Police investigation was set into motion and thereafter, challan was presented in the Court against all the accused, three in number.

3. It has come on record that after framing of the charge, accused Malkiat Singh died and vide order dated 30.01.2002, the proceedings against the said accused abated and his name was deleted from the list of accused persons. Deceased was the brother of the other co-accused. On account of the communication gap, as alleged, when petitioner was informed by his counsel that the proceedings had abated after the death of co-accused Malkiat Singh, he got the impression that proceedings have culminated against all, which was incorrect. Thereafter, petitioner did not receive any notice, warrants or was ever made aware of any publication or other proceedings that would have notified him about the pendency of the trial. The trial Court, vide order dated 15.07.2002 (Annexure P-4), ordered proclamation under Section 82, 83 Cr.P.C. to be issued against the petitioner for 18.11.2002. Thereafter, vide order dated 18.11.2002 (Annexure P-6), petitioner was declared a proclaimed person under Section 82 Cr.P.C. (mentioned as 'proclaimed offender' in the said order).

4. Notice of this petition was issued to the State of Haryana on 20.06.2022 and the main contentions urged by learned counsel for the petitioner were noticed in the order issuing notice. Learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana appeared on the said date, accepted notice on behalf of the respondent-State and sought time to assist the Court.

5. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem, that calling of the original record of the trial Court is not necessitated, as primarily challenge is on the ground that proclamation alleged to be made was procedurally defective and there has been violation of statutory provisions; and for assisting on the said issues, sufficient material is available on record before this Court.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the case file.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the proclamation was not in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 82 Cr.P.C., which are mandatory and as such, on account of that fact alone, the impugned order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed person deserves to be quashed. It is submitted that as per the said provisions, time period between the proclamation and appearance before the Court is required to be more than 30 days. Moreover, the Court is to record the specified day on which the proclamation was published, in view of the plain language of Section 82(3) Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that in the present case, both the above said statutory requirements are not fulfilled and the same is patent on the face of the record, while referring to Annexures P-4, P-5 and P-6. As such, the impugned order cannot be sustained.

8. Reliance is placed upon the decision of a coordinate Bench in Ashok Kumar vs. State of Haryana and another, 2013 (4) RCR (Cri.) 550, wherein it was held that after publication of the notice, accused has to be given mandatory period of 30 days to appear before the Court. It is also contended that failure to bring on record the specified day of the publication, to demonstrate compliance of mandatory procedural pr