ORAL ORDER

Heard the learned counsel Sri. Mahesh S., appearing for the petitioner, Smt. Rashmi Patil, learned HCGP appearing for the respondent and have perused the material on record.

2. The petitioner is before this Court, seeking for the following prayer:

"i) Issue an order or writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order of the issuance of Non Bailable Warrant and issuance of proclamation order under section 82 and 83 of the Cr.p.c dated 08/11/2023 and 30/01/2024 and the subsequent order of learned XXXVII ACMM, Bangalore dated 06/04/2024 in CC No.16246/2021 pending trial for the offences punishable under section section 120(b), 420, 465, 418, 34 of IPC vide order sheet of Hon'ble trial court produced at Annexure-D to tis petition insofar as petitioner herein.

ii) Direct the respondent authorities to refrain from taking any coercive action against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned order dated 06/04/2024 in CC No. 16246/2021 vide Annexure-D insofar as petitioner herein.

iii) Grant such other relief's to the Petitioner including the cost of this petition, in the interest of justice."

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in Crl.P.No.69/2024 disposed on

30.07.2024, wherein it has held as follows:

“3. The issue that has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition is that, it is an admitted fact that a split up charge sheet was drawn against the petitioner from the original S.C.No.552/2018, on account of non-appearance of the petitioner before the concerned Court. The concerned Court issues proclamation against the petitioner on 30.10.2023 and the petitioner is taken into custody. An application filed by the petitioner to recall the said order of proclamation comes to be rejected on 21.11.2023 and the petitioner is sentenced to pay Rs.2/- lakhs and now, the petitioner is back to the judicial custody. It is this order that is called in question by the petitioner before this Court in the subject petition.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that the order of proclamation passed by the concerned Court is completely in contravention of Section 82 of the Cr.P.C.

5. Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would accept the fact that the procedure stipulated under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. has given a go-by by the concerned Court while issuing an order of proclamation against the petitioner - accused No.6, who is said to have not appeared during the process of trial. Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. reads as follows:

“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.

(2) The proclamation shall be published as follows:—

(i) (a) it shall be publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which such person ordinarily resides;

(b) it shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which such person ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of such town or village;

(c) a copy thereof shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the Court House;

(ii) 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) A statement in writing by the Court issuing the proclamation to the effect that the proclamation was duly published on a specified day, in the manner specified in clause (i) of sub-section (2), shall be conclusive evidence that the requirements of this section have been complied with, and that the proclamation was published on such day.

(4) Where a proclamation publi