Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

26.Thus, save from impropriety on account of non­mention of the full particulars of the judicial authority which issued the NBWs, I do not find any illegality in the order dated 05.11.2011. The impropriety cannot render the order illegal. The revision petition to the extent it assails the order issuing NBW against the petitioner is liable to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly.

27. The order dated 17.12.2011 passed by Ms. Gomati Manocha, Metropolitan Magistrate has been assailed by the petitioner again on several counts. It has been submitted that the report on the NBWs issued for return on 17.12.2011 was dishonest as no statements of neighbouring residents had been recorded as indicated therein. It has been submitted that proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. could not have been issued by the Magistrate without "proper inquiry" and recording the satisfaction that the person against whom re­course to such process was to be taken, was actually "concealing himself so that such warrants cannot be executed". It has further been submitted that simultaneous issuance of proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and attachment warrant under Section 83 Cr.P.C. is against the settled law on the subject. The counsel argued that the directions in the order dated 17.12.2011 for process under Section 83 Cr.P.C. to be executed one month after the execution of proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. could not cure the illegality committed in as much as the settled procedure/practice required a "separate inquiry" under Section 83 Cr.P.C. to be held before one proceeded to issue attachment warrant under that provision of law. The counsel pointed out that attachment warrant under Section 83 Cr.P.C. can be issued "simultaneously with issuance of proclamation" only if the circumstances indicated in the proviso to Section 83(1) Cr.P.C. are shown to exist.

34.The grievance against issuance of attachment warrant simultaneously with the proclamation is, however, well founded. As observed in the case of Rohit (supra), attachment warrant could be "issued only after issuance of proclamation". Mere direction that attachment warrant under Section 83 Cr.P.C. be executed one month after execution of proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. cannot save the day. As mentioned in Rohit (supra) "the distance of not less than 30 days" has to be maintained for purposes of issuance of attachment and not merely its execution. The precaution taken by the Magistrate proceeded on the assumption that the proclamation would not secure the presence of the petitioner. This, to say the least, was baseless.

44. Noticeably, the offence comes in two varieties, the second category dealing with cases where an individual has been pronounced a "proclaimed offender" under Section 82(4) Cr.P.C. which attracts punishment more severe than the first category which concerns a person against whom proclamation has been published under Section 82(1) Cr.P.C. (not leading to such a declaration).

45.Undoubtedly, the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. leads to serious consequences which include the possibility of arrest without warrant (Section 41 Cr.P.C.) and prosecution (under Section 174A IPC). Needless to add, such proclamation may also lead to attachment of property under Section 83 Cr.P.C.

51. It is the order issuing attachment warrant under Section 83 Cr.P.C. simultaneous with the issuance of proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. which has been held to be illegal and consequently set aside. For removal of doubts, it must be added that this will not in any way be construed as detracting the jurisdiction of the concerned authorities (the police and the magistrate) from taking resort to the provision contained in Section 83 Cr.P.C. to compel the appearance of the petitioner, should she continue to evade to do so. Action of such nature, however, if taken must be in accordance with law. At the same time, the petitioner is reminded that having been declared a proclaimed person under Section 82 (1) Cr.P.C. it is her obligation to immediately present herself before the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate without any further delay or default.