Ibrahim @ Ibba vs State Of Haryana on 23 August, 2012

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Ibrahim @ Ibba vs State Of Haryana on 23 August, 2012

Bench: Ram Chand Gupta

CRM No.M-37303 of 2011                                                 -1-




      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
               AT CHANDIGARH.


                         Crl. Misc. No. M-37303 of 2011 (O&M)
                         Date of Decision: August 23, 2012.

Ibrahim @ Ibba

                                           ..........PETITIONER(s).

                   VERSUS


State of Haryana
                                           ..........RESPONDENT(s).


CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA

Present:    Mr. Satish Chaudhary, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

            Mr. Sandeep S. Mann, Sr. D.A.G. Haryana

                   *******

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 quashing of impugned order dated 22.04.2010 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nuh in case FIR No.211 dated 7.4.2006 under Sections 4-A/8, 2/8 of Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 registered at Police Station Nuh, District Mewat along with consequential proceedings arising thereto.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record.

CRM No.M-37303 of 2011 -2-

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the amended provisions of Section 82 of the Cr.P.C., petitioner could not be declared as proclaimed offender for the afore-mentioned offences.

It is necessary 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 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 CRM No.M-37303 of 2011 -3- 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)." There is force in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner-accused cannot be declared as proclaimed offender except for offences mentioned in Sub Section (4) of Section 82 Cr.P.C. However, the offences for which the petitioner-accused is facing trial, have not been mentioned in Sub Section (4) of Section 82 of Cr.P.C. Hence, he cannot be declared proclaimed offender for the said offences.

In view of the same, the present petition is accepted and the impugned order dated 22.04.2010 declaring petitioner as a proclaimed offender by learned trial Court is set aside.

However, the fact remains that petitioner has been absconding from learned trial Court. He jumped bail and did not appear before learned trial Court. He is directed to surrender before learned trial Court and apply CRM No.M-37303 of 2011 -4- for regular bail which will be decided by learned trial Court on merits without being influenced by order of this Court.

( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) August 23, 2012. JUDGE Sachin M.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court