The declaration of a person as a 'proclaimed person' under Section 82 of the CrPC is invalid if the mandatory 30-day notice period is not provided and if the court fails to record its subjective satisfaction that the accused is intentionally evading arrest.

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C., 1973, seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 30.03.2018 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned Chief Judicial (Junior Division)/ Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rewari, whereby, the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed person and impugned FIR No.333 dated 03.08.2018, registered under Section 174-A of IPC, at Police Station Model Town, Rewari, District Rewari, and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order, whereby the petitioner has been declared a proclaimed person, is wholly illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in the eyes of law. It has been submitted that earlier the petitioner was released on bail in respect of compliant case under Section 138 of the NI Act, 1881. Learned counsel has submitted that non-bailable warrants issued against the petitioner were received back either served or unserved. Learned counsel has also argued that vide order dated 02.02.2018, proclamation was issued against the petitioner for 28.02.2018. It has been argued that mandatory 30 days period as enshrined under Section 82 of the Cr. P.C. was not granted to the petitioner to cause appearance before the trial Court. Learned counsel has further submitted that, vide order dated 28.02.2018, it was mentioned therein that the executing constable had gone to the village of the accused on 24.02.2018 and affixed copy of proclamation at his house, one copy at the main bus stand and one copy at the notice board of the Court, and since stipulated period had not expired, therefore, the case was adjourned to 30.03.2018 for presence of the petitioner. It has been argued that even from the date of alleged proclamation having been executed on 24.02.2018, still 30 days period would not complete by 28.02.2018. Learned counsel has further argued that the trial Court, instead of issuing fresh proclamation had simply adjourned the matter to 30.03.2018, which is not in consonance with the provisions of Section 82 of the Cr. P.C.

Learned counsel has submitted that, vide order dated 30.03.2018, the Court below without considering proper compliance of provisions under Section 82 Cr. P.C., declared the petitioner, as proclaimed person. Learned counsel has also argued that, even an FIR No.333 dated 03.08.2018 has been registered under Section 174-A of IPC against the petitioner. Learned counsel has submitted that, the impugned order is non-speaking and mechanical order sans any reasons or application of mind, and the same is not based on facts and circumstances to show that the case was fit to invoke criminal liability of the petitioner for offence under Section 174A of IPC.

Thus, the order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender is in gross violation of law and principles of natural justice as there was no deliberate evasion or non-appearance on the part of the petitioner. On the basis of these submissions, learned counsel has prayed that the impugned order is liable to be set-aside being illegal and unjustified and hence liable to be set-aside.

On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the present petition. While refuting the case set up by the petitioner, detailed arguments were advanced on merits, contending that the offence alleged against the petitioner is serious in nature. Furthermore, it has been submitted by the learned State counsel that despite opportunities, the petitioner did not cause appearance before the trial Court and, thus, the petitioner evaded his arrest, which compelled the Court below to declare him proclaimed person and ordering initiation of proceedings under Section 174A of IPC, vide impugned order. Moreover, it has been stated that the learned Court below followed the procedure as laid-down under Section 82 of the Cr. P.C., 1973 in letter and spirit and no discrepancy whatsoever is forthcoming from the records of the case. Accordingly, dismissal of the