Punjab-Haryana High Court
Robin Singh Alias Balwinder Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 9 January, 2013
Author: K.C.Puri
Bench: K.C.Puri
Criminal Misc. No.M.39644 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No.M.39644 of 2012
Date of decision 09.1.2013.
Robin Singh alias Balwinder Singh
...... Petitioner .
versus
State of Punjab and another
...... Respondents.
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.C.PURI.
Present : Mr. L.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. K.D.Sachdeva, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab.
K.C.PURI, J.
Notice of motion.
2. On the asking of the Court, learned State counsel has accepted the notice on behalf of the State.
3. Challenge in this petition is the order dated 10.10.2006 passed by Shri Raman Kumar, PCS, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jira vide which the petitioner was declared proclaimed offender.
4. The petitioner was facing trial in case FIR No.113 dated 18.7.2003 registered against him under Sections 342, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ( in short - the IPC ) at Police Station Criminal Misc. No.M.39644 of 2012 2 Zira District Ferozepur. He was declared proclaimed offender vide order dated 10.10.2006.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per sub Section4 of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short - the Cr. P. C. ), the offences alleged against the petitioner are not such type of offence on which a person can be declared proclaimed offender. So, it is submitted that he cannot be declared proclaimed offender in view of the law laid down in Satinder Singh versus State of U.T. Chandigarh and another reported in RCR (Criminal ) 2011 (2) page 89.
6. In order to properly appreciate the facts of the case Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. is reproduced as under :-
"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 home-stead 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, Criminal Misc. No.M.39644 of 2012 3
(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 Sections 302, 304, 364, 367, 382, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 402, 436, 499, 459 or 460 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) 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)."
7. No doubt, the petitioner cannot be declared as proclaimed offender since the offences alleged against him are not covered with the offences, which are detailed in sub Section 4 of Section 82 of the Cr. P. C., as mentioned above, but the accused can be declared proclaimed person.
8. The learned State counsel has not disputed the said position.
9. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order dated Criminal Misc. No.M.39644 of 2012 4 10.10.2006 (Annexure P-4) stands set aside. However, the petitioner is declared as proclaimed person.
10. With the aforesaid modification, the petition stands disposed of accordingly.
11. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance.
( K.C.PURI ) JUDGE January 09 , 2013 sv