11.11.2025 Sl. No.21 Ct. No.42 Mujahid CRR 1341 of 2025 Rocky Sk alias Reyan Habib Vs.

The State of West Bengal Mr. Kusal Kumar Mukherjee Mr. Narattam Acharyya …for the petitioner Mr. Suman De Ms. Sujata Das …for the State

1. Present petition has been filed for challenging the order dated 30^th May, 2024 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jangipur, Murshidabad in connection with G.R. Case no.750/2024 arsing out Samsherganj P.S. Case No.154 of 2024 dated 15^th March, 2024 under Sections 302/34 of the IPC.

2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 30^th May, 2024 whereby the learned ACJM, upon request of the Investigating Officer issued the warrant of attachment and proclamation simultaneously against the petitioner and another co-accused Jahangir Alam.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned ACJM has fallen into grave error by issuing the proclamation and attachment simultaneously as the same is in the violation of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that proclamation under Section 82 sub-section (1) can be issued only if after the court has arrived to a satisfaction that the person against whom the warrant has been issued, has absconded or concealing himself on account of which warrant cannot be executed. Learned counsel submits that no such satisfaction has been recorded by the learned ACJM in the order dated 30th May, 2024. Learned counsel further submits that Section 83 sub-section (1) also provides that attachment can be issued only after the person has been declared proclaimed offender as required under Section 82 sub-section (4). It has further been submitted that only in exceptional circumstances as provided under proviso to Section 83 that the proclamation and warrant of attachment can be issued simultaneously.

4. Learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the revision petition. Learned counsel submits that present petition is hopelessly barred by limitation. It has been submitted that the petition is liable to be dismissed on account of delay and latches as there is a delay of around 295 days in filing the present petition.

5. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the co- ordinate Bench of this Court in CRR 1692 of 2014 titled as Vandana Agarwal vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr dated 16^th September, 2015.

6. Section 82 sub-section (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides that if after the warrant issued against the person has not been executed and the court has arrived to satisfaction or has reason to believe that the person against whom the warrant has been issued, has absconded or concealing himself, the court may issue a written proclamation requiring him to appear at a specified place and at a specified time not less than 30 days from the date of publication of such proclamation. Section 82 sub-section (2) provides certain condition for the publication of such proclamation. The provision also provides time of 30 days for the appearance of the accused person. Section 82 sub-section (4) provides that if a person is accused of the provisions as given in Section 82 sub- section (4) fails to appear at the specified place and time required by the proclamation, the court may after making such enquiry at it thinks fit pronounce him a proclaimed offender and make a declaration to that effect.

7. Section 83 is further stringent provision, whereby the court has been empowered by the law to issue warrant of attachment if the person fails to appear despite the proclamation being issued. The law also provides the exceptional circumstances in which the proclamation and attachment can be issued simultaneously if there is an apprehension that the offender may dispose of the whole or any part of his property from the local jurisdiction of the court.

8. The provisions incorporated in the procedural law are in the nature of safeguard and in fact are embodiment to the settled principles of fairness and natural justice. It has repeatedly been he