Punjab-Haryana High Court
Swaran Singh Grewal vs State Of Punjab on 30 August, 2012
Author: Ram Chand Gupta
Bench: Ram Chand Gupta
CRM No.M-1607 of 2012 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Misc. No. M-1607 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision: August 30, 2012.
Swaran Singh Grewal
..........PETITIONER(s).
VERSUS
State of Punjab
..........RESPONDENT(s).
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mr. Jasdeep Singh Gill, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Palwinder Singh, Sr. D.A.G. Punjab
*******
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') for quashing of order dated 02.11.2007 (Annexure P/1) issuing proclamation under Section 82 of the Code and the order dated 12.02.2008 (Annexure P/2) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana vide which the petitioner was declared as proclaimed offender.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone CRM No.M-1607 of 2012 -2- through the whole record.
Arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner is two fold. Firstly, he has argued that when the present FIR was registered he was not in India, rather, he was in Canada and that service was never effected upon him in this case. It is further submitted that as per copies of passports, new as well as previous of the petitioner attached with the petition, petitioner had left India on 10.05.2007, whereas present FIR was registered on 3.6.2007 and he returned to India on 3.2.2011 and thereafter he filed the present petition for declaring the said orders illegal. Secondly, he has submitted that the offences are under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and the same are not mentioned under Sub Section (4) of Section 82 of the Code. Hence, it is submitted that petitioner could not be declared proclaimed offender for the said offences.
Learned counsel for the State also could not show to this Court that service was ever effected on the petitioner after registration of FIR while he was in Canada.
It is pertinent to reproduce Section 82 of Cr.P.C. which reads as under:-
"Section 82. Proclamation for person absconding.-(1) 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 specific place and at a specified time not less than thirty days from the date of CRM No.M-1607 of 2012 -3- 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 published under Sub-section (1) is in respect of a person accused of an offence punishable under Section 302, 304, 364, 367, 382, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 402, 436, 449, 459 or 460 of the Indian Penal Code, and such person fails to appear at the specified place and time required by the proclamation, the Court may, after making such inquiry as it thinks fit, pronounce him a proclaimed offender and make a declaration to that effect. (5) The provisions of Sub-sections (2) and (3) shall apply to a declaration made by the Court under Sub-section (4) as they apply to the proclamation published under Sub-section (1)." A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision shows that petitioner- CRM No.M-1607 of 2012 -4- accused cannot be declared proclaimed offender for the offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code as these are not the offences which are mentioned in Sub Section (4) of Section 82 of the Code.
In view of the same, the present petition is accepted and the impugned orders issuing proclamation against the petitioner and declaring him a proclaimed offender passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana are, hereby, set aside.
Disposed of accordingly.
( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) August 30, 2012. JUDGE Sachin M.