Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Admittedly, FIR was lodged on 29.11.2010 on the basis of 'source information'. The petitioners were arrayed as accused No.7 and 8 respectively. By an order dated 23.05.2011, learned Special Judge took cognizance of the aforesaid offences. It is urged that instead of issuing summons or warrants under Section 204 Cr.P.C. for appearance of the petitioners, the Trial Court straight away issued proclamation under Section 82 Cr.PC. on the basis of report on the warrants procured by the Investigating Agency. The proclamation required the petitioners to appear on 14.07.2011 at 10.00 a.m.

8. On 08.11.2011, CBI filed supplementary charge-sheet under Section 174A read with Section 120B IPC in the main case i.e. CC No.22/11 and the impugned charge was framed therein. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the CBI Court had no jurisdiction to issue process under Sections 82/83 Cr.P.C. as they had put appearance before the Trial Court through counsel and had furnished the required 'undertaking'. Proclamation as envisaged under Section 82 Cr.P.C. did not specifically require 'personal appearance of the petitioners on the date and time mentioned therein.' Appearance through their counsel was due compliance of the proclamation issued under Section 82 Cr.P.C. Moreover, petitioners' applications under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for seeking anticipatory bail was pending consideration before this Court; they could not have been deprived of their fundamental right to seek legal remedies. There was no intentional default on behalf of the petitioners to put appearance before the Trial Court and it was due to sufficient and valid reasons.

20. This judgment has been followed in 'Moti Singh Sikarwar vs. State of U.P. and Ors', MANU/UP/2481/2016, decided on 29.11.2016 by the High Court of Allahabad. In the said judgment, it was observed that bar created by Section 195 (1) (a) Cr.P.C. would not apply to the provisions of section 174A IPC. It held:

"21. The reasons are as follows:

"1. It is to be noted that all the offences under Section 172 to 188 I.P.C. (both inclusive) are non-cognizable and bailable, whereas Section 174-A I.P.C. which provides for punishment upto 7 years imprisonment and fine, in case the offender fails to appear at the specified place and the specified time, as required by the proclamation published under Section 82 Cr.P.C., is cognizable and non-bailable. The legislature was conscious of this fact and that is why while introducing Section 174-A in the I.P.C. in the year 2006, it made no corresponding amendment in Section 195 (1)(a) Cr.P.C. so as to include Section 174-A I.P.C. in between all the non- cognizable offences and bailable from Sections 172 to 188 I.P.C.