Orders issued without adherence to legal procedure under the Code of Criminal Procedure are deemed unlawful.

Adv. Debojit Kundu … for the defacto-complainant On prayer of the petitioner, leave is granted to correct the prayer portion of the application.

The petitioner has assailed the orders dated 28^th February, 2025, 13^th March, 2025, 21^st March, 2025 and 10^th April, 2025 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalpaiguri in G.R.

case no. 5460 of 2024 Heard learned counsels for the parties.

It appears that warrant of arrest was issued by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalpaiguri against the petitioners on 28^th January, 2025. The learned Magistrate has recorded in the order dated 28^th February, 2025 that no E/R of WA was received in respect of the petitioners. The same fact was also recorded in the order dated 13th March, 2025. Surprisingly, in the order dated 21st March, 2025 the learned Magistrate recorded receipt of proclamation upon service of the same to the petitioners and other co-accused. Warrant of attachment was also issued by the same order. Again, the order dated 10^th April, 2025 records that no E/R of W/P was received in respect of the petitioners and others. The Magistrate was of the view that warrant of proclamation would soon become effective and issued warrant of attachment against the petitioners.

The learned Magistrate recorded non-receipt of execution return of warrant of arrest. No warrant of proclamation was issued by the learned Magistrate or in fact, could have been issued under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure without receipt of non- execution return of warrant of arrest and recording his satisfaction with regard to issuance of warrant of proclamation. Surprisingly, without issuance of warrant of proclamation the learned Magistrate has recorded that warrant of proclamation was served upon the petitioners. Again, by the subsequent order dated 10^th April, 2025 the learned Magistrate has directed issuance of warrant of attachment in contemplation of execution of warrant of proclamation which was not issued at all.

It shall be useful to reproduce Sections 82 and 83 of the Code.

“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 specified time not less than thirty days from the date of publishing such proclamation.

83. Attachment of property of person absconding.- (1) The Court issuing a proclamation under section 82 may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, at any time after the issue of the proclamation, order the attachment of any property, movable or immovable, or both, belonging to the proclaimed person:”

Without further deliberation on the issue, this Court holds that the orders impugned are dehors the law and should be set aside in so far as the petitioners are concerned.

Accordingly, the revisional application being CRR 323 of 2025 is allowed.

The orders impugned dated 28^th February, 2025, 13^th March, 2025, 21^st March, 2025 and 10^th April, 2025 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalpaiguri in G.R. case no. 5460 of 2024 in so far as the petitioners are concerned is set aside.

There shall however be no order as to costs.

Since no affidavit is invited, the allegations contained in the petition are deemed not to have been admitted.