Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

It is contended that even if the proceedings under Section 82(1) to 82(3) of Cr.P.C. is completed qua the petitioner, the petitioner could not be declared as a proclaimed offender as he is not accused of any offences mentioned under Section 82(4) Cr.P.C. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Rishabh Sethi vs. State of Rajasthan, judgment dated 08.03.2018 in S.B. Crl.Misc.(Petition) No.5767/2017.

3. Per contra, it is contended on behalf of the State that even though the petitioner may not have been accused of the offences mentioned in Section 82(4) Cr.P.C., the petitioner can still be declared as a proclaimed offender as the procedure contemplated in Section 82(1) to 82(3) has been complied with. It is contended that the term 'proclaimed offender' can also be used in respect of individuals who are accused of offences other than those mentioned in Section 82(4) Cr.P.C, though consequences may be different. Reliance is placed on the decisions of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Crl.Misc.No. No.30146/2011 titled Rajiv vs. State of Haryana dated 12.10.2011 and Crl.M.359/2012 titled Deeksha Puri vs. State of Haryana, (2013) 1 RCR (Crl.) 159(2) decided on 16.10.2012.

7. The question that arises of consideration is as to whether a person who is not accused of any of the offences mentioned in section 82(4) Cr.P.C. can be declared a Proclaimed Offender?

8. Section 82 of Cr.P.C. reads a 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.

21. I am in respectful disagreement with the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Rajiv vs. State of Haryana (supra) and Deeksha Puri vs. State of Haryana (supra).

22. The reasoning given by learned Judge in Deeksha Puri (supra) inter alia is that "Sub-section (4) of Section 82 Cr.P.C., if read, independent of the other sub-sections of Section 82Cr.P.C. and provision of Section 174-A IPC and Section 174 IPC, is capable of being misconstrued to mean that it is only that accused person, facing trial, only for offences mentioned in Section 82 (4), who can be declared "proclaimed offender" after publication under Section 82 (1) (2) and (3) Cr.P.C. giving immunity to the other absconders from being declared "proclaimed offenders". In that imaginary situation, it appears to be a relaxation clause. But if sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 82Cr.P.C. are read alongwith sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 82 Cr.P.C. and Scheme of other provisions of Cr.P.C. and Sections 174 and 174 A IPC, following the Rule of "Contextual construction", and "Harmonious Construction", it would avoid the risk of making interrelated provisions becoming otiose or devoid of meaning. The intention of legislation to make stringent penal provisions of Section 174 A IPC for securing the presence of an absconder by providing 7 years imprisonment for avoiding summons, warrants or proclamation, under Section 82 (1) Cr.P.C. can not be ignored while construing Section 82 (4) Cr.P.C. One can not negate the effect of Section 174-A IPC and render it redundant by misconstruing the Section 82 (4) Cr.P.C. to mean that it is meant to provide relaxation to offenders of offences not covered under Section 82 (4) Cr.P.C."

23. The basic reasoning for the learned judge to hold that all persons qua whom a declaration has been published under section 82(1) Cr.P.C. would be deemed to be proclaimed offender is that any other interpretation would render the provisions of section 174A IPC otiose and redundant.

24. In my view, learned judge has not noticed that the provisions of section 174 IPC and 174A IPC operate in different circumstances.

25. Sections 174 and 174A IPC read as under:

"174. Non-attendance in obedience to an order from public servant --Whoever, being legally bound to attend in person or by an agent at a certain place and time in obedience to a summons, notice, order or proclamation proceeding from any public servant legally competent, as such public servant, to issue the same, intentionally omits to attend at that place or time, or departs from the place where he is bound to attend before the time at which it is lawful for him to depart, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both, or, if the summons, notice, order or proclamation is to attend in person or by agent in a Court of Justice, with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.