Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ravinder Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 23 March, 2012
Author: Ram Chand Gupta
Bench: Ram Chand Gupta
CRM M-2401 of 2012. -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Misc. No. M-2401 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 23.03.2012.
Ravinder Singh
..........PETITIONER(s).
VERSUS
State of Punjab and others.
..........RESPONDENT(s).
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mr. Divjyot S. Sandhu, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. P. S. Paul, D.A.G. Punjab,
counsel for respondent-State.
Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate
for respondents No.2 to 4.
*******
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.') for getting the order dated 6.2.2010 declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender set aside.
Petitioner is an accused in FIR No.184 dated 19.08.2008 under Sections 363, 376 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and Section 67 of Information Technology Act, 2000.
There is no dispute that petitioner did not appear before the learned trial Court for a considerable period and hence, trial Court initiated CRM M-2401 of 2012. -2- proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. for declaring him as proclaimed offender and he was declared as proclaimed offender vide order dated 6.2.2010.
Petitioner has challenged the said order passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala. The only contention raised by petitioner is that Magistrate could not have declared petitioner proclaimed offender as he is not accused of any of the offences specified under sub Section 4 of Section 82 Cr.P.C.
It is pertinent to reproduce Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. which reads as under:-
"Section 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 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 CRM M-2401 of 2012. -3- 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). It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that offences under Sections 363 and 376 of IPC have not been mentioned under sub Section 4 of Section 82 Cr.P.C. and hence, even if he was absconding, he cannot be declared proclaimed offender under said provisions of law. He has also placed reliance upon judgment of Co- ordinate Bench of this Court rendered in Satinder Singh Versus The State of U.T. Chandigarh and another 2011(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 89.
Hence, I order accordingly.
However, as petitioner has been absconding since long, he is directed to surrender before the Magistrate and if he so surrenders and applies for regular bail before the Magistrate, the Magistrate will decide the same on merits in accordance with law.
The present petition stands disposed of.
( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) March 23, 2012. JUDGE Sachin M.