Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.22 seconds)Section 3 in The Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 [Entire Act]
Amandeep Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 30 January, 2023
13. Similarly in the case of Amandeep Singh vs. State of Punjab in
CRM-M-26161-2024, it has been observed by this Court that "In view of
provisions of Section 82(1) Cr.P.C., it is clear that the publication was effected
on 9.2.2013 and the accused was directed to appear in the Court as per that
publication on 6.3.2013 which period was less than 30 days. Therefore, it
cannot be held that by passing the impugned order on 13.3.2013, the publication
has been effected as per the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. There was no order
in the publication for the accused giving specified time and place to appear on
13.3.2013. Therefore, this order is not as per law and the same is set aside."
Ashok Kumar Yadav And Ors. Etc. Etc vs State Of Haryana And Ors. Etc. Etc on 10 May, 1985
14. In the present case while publication was effected on 13.05.2011
the accused was required to appear on 14.05.2011. With regard to above-
mentioned situations, the principles of law have been laid down by this High
Court in the case of in Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana 2013(4) RCR
(Criminal) 550 while interpreting the provision of Section 82(1) has held that a
clear period of 30 days is required to be furnished to the accused and that even
in case the Court subsequently adjourned the matter, such adjournment beyond
5 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 04-12-2025 01:05:17 :::
CRM-M-26168-2025 (O&M) -6-
30 days cannot be treated as compliance of provisions of Section 82(1) Cr.P.C.
The relevant extract from the cited judgment reads as follows:-
Simrandeep Singh Bajwa vs State Of Punjab on 31 January, 2013
1. By invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction vested in this Court by
virtue of Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023,
hereinafter being referred to as "BNSS", the present petition has been filed by
the petitioner for quashing of order dated 02.01.2025, hereinafter being referred
to as 'impugned order' passed in a case titled as 'Simrandeep Singh vs. State of
Punjab'. The above-mentioned case is arising out of Rapat No.9 dated
19.03.2020 under Section 3 Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act,
Police Station R.P.F./Amritsar. By virtue of above-mentioned impugned order,
1 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 04-12-2025 01:05:15 :::
CRM-M-26168-2025 (O&M) -2-
the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar has declared the petitioner to be
a proclaimed offender.
Avtar Singh vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 2 May, 2018
11. A bare perusal of the above-mentioned order shows that the
proclamation which was affixed on 20.11.2024 was for 21.11.2024, and from
the date of affixation of proclamation till the date of appearance 30 days clear
time was not afforded to the accused. With regard to above-mentioned
situations, the principles of law have been laid down by this High Court in the
case of Avtar Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Anr. in CRM-M-1866-2017, is
relevant, wherein it has been held that "The above quoted provision makes it
4 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 04-12-2025 01:05:17 :::
CRM-M-26168-2025 (O&M) -5-
clear that through the proclamation made prior to declaration of a person as a
proclaimed offender, he should be given not less than thirty days from the date
of its proclamation to appear at a specified place and a specified time.
1