CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE PRESENT:

The Hon’ble Justice Apurba Sinha Ray CRR 280 of 2023 Hakim Mia @ Miya Vs.

The Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.

FOR THE PETITIONER : Mr. Arnab Saha Mr. Md. Shoaib Akhtar Mr. Saptarshi Banik FOR THE CBI : Mr. Sudipto Kumar Mazumder, Ld. DSGI Mr. Ajay Kumar Singhania Mr. Sourab Kar CAV ON : MARCH 11, 2025 JUDGMENT ON : MARCH 13, 2025 THE COURT:

1. Read orders dated 10.03.2025 and 11.03.2025.

2. By order dated 10.03.2025 this Court has specifically observed that the accused who is allegedly absconding has also the legal right to challenge the relevant order before a higher forum to urge that a court of law should comply with the directions of the law before issuing warrant of proclamation and attachment. In the said order this court observed that from section 82 of Cr.P.C. it is revealed that the court has certain duties to perform before issuance of a proclamation against an absconding accused. The said section provides, inter alia, that the proclamation shall be published and shall be publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or the village in which such persons ordinarily resides. It is also the bounden duty of the Court to see that the proclamation shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house of the absconding accused where he ordinarily resides. It is a further duty of the Court to see that a copy of the proclamation shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the Court house. The Court may also, if it thinks fit, direct a copy of the proclamation to be published in a daily newspaper circulating in the place in which such person ordinarily resides.

3. Pursuant to the said order the Central Bureau of Investigation (‘CBI’ henceforth) has submitted xerox of certified copies of the seizure, orders etc. in connection with relevant G.R. Case No. 311 of 2021 in support of its contention that all legal formalities under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. have been complied with. It is also submitted that on 12.02.2022 necessary steps regarding publication of the proclamation, affixation of such proclamation in conspicuous places as mentioned in Section 82 and announcement of contents of the proclamation in the vicinity of the residences of the accused persons were made. The learned Deputy Solicitor General of India ( ‘the DSGI’ henceforth) has drawn the attention of the court to the relevant report of the Central Bureau of Investigation whereby it has mentioned how, when and the manner in which proclamation was published, affixed and announced as per Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. on 12.02.2022

4. The learned DSGI, Mr. Mazumder has submitted that all conditions required under the above sections have been duly complied with and as such the order dated 01.06.2023 was duly passed by the Learned Trial Judge and therefore, the present revisional application should be dismissed. 5. The learned counsel Mr. Saha for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the several judicial decisions in support of his contention that issuance of proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. is of enormous importance and issuance of such proclamation cannot be done in a mechanical manner. There is no whisper whether the relevant proclamation specified the date and the place where the accused were asked to appear. The order dated 01.06.2023 passed by the Learned Trial Judge was not in conformity with the requirements as laid down in section 82 of the Cr.P.C.

6. Mr. Saha has referred to the case laws reported in (2024) 7 Supreme Court Cases 61 (Tarsem Lal Vs. Directorate of Enforcement Jalandhar Zonal Office), one unreported decision of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in CR. M.P. No. 2722 of 2019 (Md. Rustum Alam @ Rustam & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand), MANU/WB/0554/2014 (Nanki Bhayna Vs. State of West Bengal), one unreported decision of High Court of Jharkhand at Ranch in Cr.M.P. No. 792 of 2024 (Sanjay Pandey Vs. The State of Jharkhand),