The court emphasized that failure to comply with procedural mandates under Section 82 of the Cr PC invalidates the declaration of a person as a proclaimed offender.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Harkesh Manuja, J. (ORAL)

By way of present petition filed under Section 482 Cr PC, prayer has been made for quashing of the order dated 29.11.2023 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandigarh, whereby, the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Having been arrayed as an accused in complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 filed at the instance of respondent-complainant, the petitioner was summoned vide order dated 11.04.2022. On account of non-appearance of the petitioner, proclamation under Section 82 of Cr PC was ordered against him on 22.09.2023 for 29.11.2023 being the date of appearance. The proclamation in this regard was effected on 04.10.2023 and the statement of executants-police officer was recorded by the trial Court on 10.10.2023 which reads as under:-

"It is requested that one copy of publication was pasted outside the house of accused, second copy was pasted at local bus stand, third copy was pasted at notice board of Court and fourth copy was presented in the learned Court. Report is presented."

3. Based thereupon, the petitioner, on account of his nonappearance on the date fixed i.e. on 29.11.2023 was declared as proclaimed person.

4. Impugning the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proclamation effected against the petitioner on 04.10.2023 was not in consonance with the mandate of Section 82 of Cr PC as the same was never read over in public place as contemplated under Section 82 (2) (i) (a) of Cr PC and resultantly, the impugned order was unsustainable in law.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent vehemently opposes the prayer made herein while submitting that the petitioner despite having knowledge about pendency of proceedings against him deliberately chose not to appear before the trial Court and thus, the impugned order warrants no interference.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book.

7. A perusal of record shows that proclamation issued on 22.09.2023 was effected on 04.10.2023 by Constable Parkash Kumar 1038/CP Summon PO Staff, U.T. Chandigarh. From a perusal of his statement dated 10.10.2023 which was recorded before the trial Court, it no where finds mention that the proclamation was ever read out publicly in some conspicuous place of the town in which the petitioner ordinarily resides and thus, there was apparent violation of Section 82 (2) (i) (a) of Cr PC.

8. Moreover, learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions from his client, submit that he volunteers to serve public cause by providing machinery to Civil Dispensary of Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh. Requirement of equipments was asked from Civil Dispensary of this Court and a communication in this regard has been received under the Signatures of Medical Officer, Civil Dispensary, Punjab and Haryana High Court mentioning the details thereof.

9. In view of the above, the proclamation having been made in violation of the mandate of Section 82 of Cr PC, the impugned order dated 29.11.2023 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandigarh becomes unsustainable in the eyes of law and thus, the same is quashed, however, subject to providing of 3 Intelli MED Stethoscopes, 2 Digital B.P. Apparatuses (Omoron), 1 digital scale Weighing machine (omoron), 2 Accu check (Glucometer) and two manual B.P. Apparatuses to Civil Dispensary in Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh within a period of two weeks from today as volunteered by the petitioner against due receipt issued by the concerned Civil Surgeon, who shall prepare an inventory in this regard for its regular inspection by the Director concerned. A copy of the receipt shall also be sent to the office of Advocate General, Chandigarh at the earliest for maintaining records in this regard.