Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(5) The provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3) shall apply

3 of 8 to a declaration made by the Court under sub-section (4) as they apply to the proclamation published under sub- section (1)."

The essential requirements of Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. for issuance and publication of proclamation against an absconder and declaring him as proclaimed person/offender may be summarized as under:-

(i) Prior issuance of warrant of arrest by the Court is sine qua non for issuance and publication of the proclamation and the Court has to first issue warrant of arrest against the person concerned. (See Rohit Kumar Vs. State of Delhi : 2008 Crl. J. 2561).

(vi) The Proclamation has to be published in the manner laid down in Section 82 (2) of the Cr.P.C.. For publication the proclamation has to be first publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which the accused ordinarily resides; then the same has to be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which the accused ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of such town or village and thereafter a copy of the proclamation has to be affixed to some conspicuous part of the Court-house. The three sub-clauses (a)-

Clear notice of 30 days as mandated under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C.
was not given to the petitioner and the procedure for publication of the proclamation was also not followed. The petitioner was held to have been wrongly declared a proclaimed offender and the impugned order was quashed.
In Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and another :
2013 (4) RCR (Criminal) 550 the case was adjourned by the trial Court vide order dated 04.01.2013 for issuance of proclamation under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. for 06.03.2014 but period of 30 days had not elapsed from the date of publication till 06.03.2014. On that date case was adjourned to 13.03.2014 on which date the petitioner was declared as proclaimed offender. It was held by this Court that the proclamation was not published in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 82(1) of the Cr.P.C. by giving mandatory period of 30 days from the date of publication of the proclamation till the date of hearing fixed in the case for appearance of the petitioner and that the mere fact that on 06.03.2014 the Court adjourned the case to 13.03.2014 for

6 of 8 completing the period of 30 days could not be treated as compliance of the provisions of Section 82(1) of the Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the order declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender was set aside.

The facts of the present case are similar to those of the cases referred above. In the present case vide order dated 13.09.2017 proclamation under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. was ordered to be published against the petitioners requiring the petitioners to appear before the Court on 09.10.2017. The proclamation was published on 16.09.2017. The petitioners were not given statutory minimum period of thirty days from 16.09.2017 (the date on which the proclamation issued in terms of order dated 13.09.2017 was published) till 09.11.2017 (the date fixed for his appearance before the Court). Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurugram vide order dated 09.10.2017 adjourned the case to 09.11.2017 for awaiting the appearance of the petitioners on the ground that statutory period of thirty days had not elapsed and vide order dated 09.11.2017 declared the petitioners to be proclaimed person. Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurugram could not extend the time to complete the period of thirty days by simply adjourning the case on 09.10.2017 to 09.11.2017 for awaiting appearance of the petitioners and was mandatorily required to issue the proclamation again for publication thereof in accordance with the provisions of Section 82(2) of the Cr.P.C. by giving thirty days time to the petitioners from the date of publication of the proclamation till the date fixed for his appearance before the Court. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurugram failed to do so. It follows that the petitioners were wrongly declared 7 of 8 proclaimed person vide impugned order dated 09.11.2017 in breach of the prescribed procedure and impugned order dated 09.11.2017 suffers from material illegality and is liable to be quashed.