S. No.126 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

CRM-M-64303 of 2025 Date of Decision:14.11.2025 Dasrath @ Dashrat .....Petitioner Vs.

State of Punjab .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present:- Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Jatinderpal Singh, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

****

Yashvir Singh Rathor, J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been instituted under Section 482 Cr.P.C/528 of BNSS, 2023 for quashing order dated 20.01.2025 (Annexure P.9) passed by learned JMIC, Derabassi, whereby the petitioner has been declared as a proclaimed person in case bearing No.CHA/66/2023 titled “State Vs. Dasrath etc.” in case FIR No.63 dated 19.02.2023 registered under Sections 61, 78(2) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 at Police Station Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar (Mohali) and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Upon notice, the State Counsel has appeared. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and material placed on the file has been perused.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner has been wrongly declared as a proclaimed person. He never received any summons/ warrants from the trial Court and serious efforts were not made by the trial Court to secure his presence. On perusal of the paper book, it is revealed that during the proceedings of case FIR No.63 dated 19.02.2023 registered under Sections 61, 78(2) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 at Police Station Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar (Mohali), warrants of arrest against petitioner Dasrath @ Dashrat were directed to be issued initially vide order dated 29.02.2024. On 02.09.2024, warrants of arrest were received back unexecuted but, it is not mentioned as to what was the report on the warrants of arrest and simply by recording satisfaction that the accused has intentionally absconded from the process of law and the presence of accused cannot be procured otherwise than through the proclamation warrants under Section 82 Cr.P.C., the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C was ordered to be issued and tamili/ serving official was directed to execute the same. On 28.11.2024, proclamation was got effected and the report was made by serving constable to the effect that he has pasted one photostat copy of notice on the wall of Balmik Mandir due to incomplete address of accused Dasrath and one copy thereof has been affixed in the open public place park of Baba Jiwan Singh Nagar and one copy of notice was pasted at notice board of the Court. On 13.12.2024, the proclamation was received back duly effected and the statement of serving constable was recorded and the case was adjourned to 20.01.2025 for awaiting appearance of the accused. On 20.01.2025, petitioner was declared a Proclaimed Person. Learned counsel contended that no proclamation had been issued against the accused for 20.01.2025 and as such, he did not have any knowledge that he was required to appear before the Court on 20.01.2025 and impugned order dated 20.01.2025, vide which he has been declared Proclaimed Person is thus illegal and nonest.

4. Learned counsel further contended that as per order dated 20.01.2025, proclamation issued against accused was received back executed and statement of serving constable was recorded in which he stated that he has pasted one photostat copy of notice on the wall of Balmik Mandir due to incomplete address of accused Dasrath and one copy thereof has been affixed in the open public place park of Baba Jiwan Singh Nagar and one copy of notice was pasted at notice board of Hon’ble Court. However, the proclamation was not publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town where the accused resided and it was thus violation of provisions of Section 82(2)(i)(a) of Cr.P.C and on this score also, proclamation is invalid and a nullity and proceedings under Section 82 of Cr.P.C are thus liable to be quashed. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon 2022(1) Law Herald 219 – Rahul Durej