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

2023 Supreme(P&H) 2963

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SANJIV BERRY, J.
Abhinav Singh – Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana & Anr. – Respondents
CRM-M-64052 of 2023
Decided On : 20-12-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Ms. Promila Nain, Advocate with Mr. Amit Thakur, Advocate; For the Petitioner

The declaration of a person as proclaimed under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is invalid if the mandatory 30-day notice period is not adhered to.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 82 - Proclamation for person absconding - Petitioner declared proclaimed person without adhering to the mandatory 30-day period from the date of proclamation - Court found the impugned order invalid due to non-compliance with statutory requirements. (Paras 10, 11)

(B) Absence due to miscommunication - The petitioner’s absence was not intentional, leading to cancellation of bail and issuance of proclamation. (Paras 2, 7)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought quashing of the order declaring him a proclaimed person under FIR No.252, contending that he was absent due to miscommunication after being granted bail and had regularly appeared in court.

Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the impugned order was invalid as the required 30-day notice was not provided before declaring the petitioner a proclaimed person.

Issues: The main issue was whether the declaration of the petitioner as a proclaimed person complied with the statutory requirement of a 30-day notice period.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the failure to comply with the 30-day notice requirement rendered the order invalid, emphasizing adherence to statutory provisions.

Result: The petition was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.

JUDGMENT

Sanjiv Berry, J. (Oral)

By way of present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has sought quashing of the impugned order dated 28.05.2019 (Annexure P-1) whereby the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed person in FIR No.252 dated 01.07.2017 registered under Section 381 of IPC, registered at P.S. Sector 5, Panchkula, District Panchkula (Annexure P-2).

2. It is, inter alia, contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner after having been granted bail in the aforesaid FIR had been regularly appearing in the Court. When, during the course of proceedings, due to miscommunication of date, he could not appear and was marked absent and later ordered to be summoned through bailable warrants of arrest and finally with proclamation vide order dated 16.03.2019. She further submits that vide the impugned order dated 28.05.2019 (Annexure P-1), the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person in this case relying upon the statement of the Executing Official, which was recorded on the same day and perusal of the statement (Annexure P-5) reveals that the proclamation was effected on 23.05.2019 and specified period of 30 days had not lapsed when the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person and therefore there is violation of provisions contained in Section 82 Cr.P.C. She contends that the petitioner is not facing any other criminal case.

3. Notice of motion.

4. On the asking of the Court, Ms. Gaganpreet Kaur, DAG, Haryana, who is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and submits that as per the information, there is no other criminal case registered against the petitioner.

5. Arguments heard.

6. After considering the rival contentions and perusing the record in the form of zimni orders placed on record by learned counsel for the petitioner, it transpires that the petitioner after having been arrested in the aforesaid FIR (Annexure P-2) was granted concession of bail and had been appearing in the Court. It is evident from the order dated 11.09.2018 (Annexure P-4) that the petitioner absented from the proceedings leading to cancellation of his bail and issuance of warrants of arrest.

7. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the absence of the petitioner was not intentional, but due to some miscommunication of date for that day.

8. Further perusal of the orders placed on record reveals that on 16.03.2019, the warrants of the petitioner were received back unexecuted and the learned trial Court proceeded to issue proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. for 28.05.2019 and on that day, relying upon the statement of the Executing Official, the learned Court passed the impugned order declaring the petitioner as proclaimed person in this case.

9. During the course of hearing, the attention of the Court has been drawn to the statement of the Executing Official SPO Mahabir Singh, recorded by learned trial Court on 28.05.2019 (Annexure P-5) wherein he had categorically stated that on 23.05.2019, he had conducted search for the accused and also about his whereabouts and thereafter copy of proclamation was pasted on main gate of the house of the petitioner, another at the Bus Stand and one copy in the Court Complex. Therefore, from the statement, it is revealed that the proclamation for the presence of the petitioner was effected by the Executing Official only on 23.05.2019 and the petitioner had been declared as proclaimed person in this case vide order dated 28.05.2019.

10. In the backdrop of above facts and circumstances, it would be relevant to refer to provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. which is read as under:

    "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 speci

                  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 Back to top