IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Harkesh Manuja, J.
Ramandeep Singh Sangha @ Ramna Sangha – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
CRM-M No. 63098 of 2023
Decided On : 04-01-2024
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Quashing of Proclamation Order - Violation of Section 82 (2) (i) (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the order declaring him as a proclaimed offender, citing violation of Section 82 (2) (i) (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the proclamation was not publicly read in a conspicuous place as required by Section 82 (2) (i) (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, and the impugned order was in violation of this provision.
Issues: Violation of Section 82 (2) (i) (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the proclamation must be publicly read in a conspicuous place as required by Section 82 (2) (i) (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, and failure to comply with this requirement renders the proclamation invalid.
Final Decision: The revision petition was allowed, and the impugned order declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed offender was set aside.
Judgment
Mr. Harkesh Manuja, J.
By way of present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 22.04.2022 (P-13) passed by the trial Court in case FIR No. 0214 dated 12.10.2020 under Sections 323, 341, 365, 382, 506, 295-A, 148 and 149 IPC registered at Police Station Vairo-Ke, District Fazilka, whereby the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed offender with further prayer for staying order dated 22.04.2022.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a perusal of the statement dated 07.02.2022 made by Executant/Head Constable, it could be seen that the proclamation was never read over in a public place thereby violating Section 82 (2) (i) (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, and thus the proceedings against him vide impugned order were initiated.
3. Learned State counsel while supporting the impugned order submits that the petitioner despite having knowledge about the pendency of proclamation issued against him tried to evade the trial and thus does not deserve any leniency.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book.
5. Upon perusal of statement of the Executant/Head Constable which was recorded on 07.02.2022, it can be traced out that the order dated 13.11.2021 issuing proclamation was never read over in a public place as enjoined under Section 82 (2) (i) (a) of the Code of the Criminal Procedure 1973. Moreover, the proclamation was ordered by the trial Court on 30.11.2021 for 07.02.2022 whereas vide order dated 22.04.2022, the petitioner was declared as proclaimed offender and for the said date there was no proclamation ordered or affected.
6. Section 82 (2) (i) (a) of the Code of the Criminal Procedure 1973, required that the proclamation shall be publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which such person ordinarily resides. The proclamation is an act of a public announcement requiring the presence of the accused being regulating liberty of an individual is required to be mandatorily followed being inviolable. The impugned order dated 22.04.2023 thus being in violation of compliance of Section 82 (2) (i) (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is accordingly set aside.
7. The present revision petition is allowed.
Failure to comply with the mandatory requirement of publicly reading the proclamation in a conspicuous place as per Section 82 (2) (i) (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 renders the proclamat....
Mandatory compliance with Section 82(2)(i)(a) of Cr.P.C., emphasizing the requirement for the proclamation to be read publicly as per constitutional rights.
A proclamation under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. is a mandatory procedural requirement that must strictly provide a clear 30-day notice period and a judicial finding of abscondence; failure to adhere t....
The declaration of a person as a 'proclaimed person' under Section 82 of the CrPC is invalid if the mandatory 30-day notice period is not provided and if the court fails to record its subjective sati....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.