Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Satyanarayan S/O Shri Gopal Meena B/C ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 25 January, 2019
Author: Pankaj Bhandari
Bench: Pankaj Bhandari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 2049/2018
Satyanarayan S/o Shri Gopal Meena B/c Meena, Aged About 43
Years, R/o Village Bhukha, Police Station Malarna Dungar, Sawai
Madhopur, Presently R/o Flat No.18, Sector 18, Rohini, New
Delhi.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, through PP.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Upman with Mr. Kailash Chand Meena.
For State : Mr. Sudesh Saini, PP.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
Order
25/01/2019
1. Counsel for the petitioner has preferred this revision petition against the order dated 06.07.2018 passed under Section 82 of Cr.P.C., directing the petitioner to appear before the Court on 17.07.2018 and submit the reply and against the order dated 20.07.2018 passed under Section 83 of Cr.P.C. attaching the property of the petitioner considering him as a absconder and issued warrant of attachment of property to petitioner under Section 83 of Cr.P.C.
2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that as per Section 82 of Cr.P.C., the proclamation has to be published by the Court requiring the person against whom the proclamation is issued to appear at specified place and at a specified time, not (Downloaded on 05/06/2021 at 10:59:02 PM) (2 of 3) [CRLR-2049/2018] less than 30 days from the date of publishing of such proclamation. It is contended that the proclamation under Section 82 was issued on 06.07.2018 and petitioner was directed to appear before the Court and submit the reply on 17.07.20108, which was just eleven days from the date of issuance of proclamation. It is contended that proclamation under Section 82 is contrary to law.
3. It is contended that as per section 83 of Cr.P.C., the Court issuing proclamation under Section 82 may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, at any time after the issuance of the proclamation, order the attachment of any property, movable or immovable, or both, belonging to the proclaimed person.
4. It is contended that since the proclamation was not issued in accordance with Section 82 of Cr.P.C., the Court could not have proceeded under Section 83 of Cr.P.C. The attachment order was also passed within fourteen days of the issuance of proclamation order under Section 82 of Cr.P.C.
5. Learned Pubic Prosecutor has opposed the revision petition.
6. I have considered the contentions.
7. From the bare perusal of the proclamation order dated 06.07.2018, it is revealed that petitioner was directed to put in appearance and submit reply on 17.07.2018. Thus, petitioner was not given thirty days time from the date of publication of the proclamation. Hence, the order dated 06.07.2018 is bad in law. The attachment order issued by the Court also suffers from impropriety and the same has been issued within fourteen days of the issuance of proclamation notice under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. There is no material whatsoever before the Court that the (Downloaded on 05/06/2021 at 10:59:02 PM) (3 of 3) [CRLR-2049/2018] petitioner was about to dispose of his property and was removing the property from the jurisdiction of the Court.
8. In view of the same, the order dated 06.07.2018 and order dated 20.07.2018 cannot be sustained and revision petition deserves to be allowed.
9. The revision petition is allowed. The order dated 06.07.2018 and 20.07.2018 are quashed and set aside.
(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J.
Chandan/35 (Downloaded on 05/06/2021 at 10:59:02 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)