Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.22 seconds)Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 82 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
State Of U.P vs Boota Singh & Others on 22 August, 1978
9. Accordingly, in view of the discussion as made above and also in
view of the ratio of law as laid down in above cited authorities
authorities,, the present
petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 15.02.2024 (Annexure P-6),
P
passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jagraon in case
titled as State vs. Boota Singh,
Singh, arising out of FIR No. 90 dated 09.11.2020,
registered
d under Sections 323, 325, 34 of IPC at Police Station Hathur,
District Ludhiana, whereby the petitioner had been declared a proclaimed
absconder,, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
Dr. Rohit Kumar vs Secretary Office Of Lt. Governor Of ... on 15 July, 2021
6. After going through the material placed on reco
record
rd as well as the
copies of zimni
zim orders passed by the learned trial Court, it is revealed that on
12.09.2023 since the non-bailable
12.09.2023, bailable warrants issued against the petitioner were
received back unserved, the learned trial Court had ordered for issuance of
proclamation against him for 18.12.2023.. A bare perusal of this order shows
that the learned trial Court before ordering
ordering for publication of proclamation has
not recorded its proper satisfaction that that the petitioner had absconded or
2 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 06-04-2025 11:48:21 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:045275
CRM-M-3481
3481-2025 (O&M) -3-
was concealing himself so that the warrant of arrest, previously issued, cannot
be executed, despite reasonable diligence, which was in violation of the
provisions of Section 82(1) of Cr.P.C. Reliance in this regard can be placed
upon Rohit Kumar Vs. State of Delhi : 2008 Crl. J. 2561.
Gurappa Gugal And Ors. vs State Of Mysore on 11 June, 1968
7. A perusal of the record reveals that a fresh proclamation was
issued on 18.12.2023 for 06.01.2024. When the case was taken up on
06.01.2024, the proclamation was received executed. However, since the
mandatory period of 30 days had not elapsed the case was adjourned to
15.02.2024. On a perusal of the statement of the serving police official, it is
revealed
aled that the proclamation was executed only on 05.01.2024, requiring the
petitioner to cause his appearance before the trial Court on 06.01.2024
06.01.2024, which
means that the petitioner was not granted mandatory period of 30 days to
cause his appearance before the learned trial Court. Hence, the same was in
clear violation of the provisions of Section 82(1) Cr.P.C., as per which, a
specified time of not less
less than 30 days is required to be given to the accused
from the date of publishing such proclamation which is mandatory in nature.
Reliance in this regard can be placed upon Gurappa Gugal and others Vs.
State of Mysore : 1969 CriLJ 826 and Shokat Ali Vs. State
tate of Haryna :
Afjal Ali Sha @ Abjal Shaukat Sha vs The State Of West Bengal on 17 March, 2023
7. A perusal of the record reveals that a fresh proclamation was
issued on 18.12.2023 for 06.01.2024. When the case was taken up on
06.01.2024, the proclamation was received executed. However, since the
mandatory period of 30 days had not elapsed the case was adjourned to
15.02.2024. On a perusal of the statement of the serving police official, it is
revealed
aled that the proclamation was executed only on 05.01.2024, requiring the
petitioner to cause his appearance before the trial Court on 06.01.2024
06.01.2024, which
means that the petitioner was not granted mandatory period of 30 days to
cause his appearance before the learned trial Court. Hence, the same was in
clear violation of the provisions of Section 82(1) Cr.P.C., as per which, a
specified time of not less
less than 30 days is required to be given to the accused
from the date of publishing such proclamation which is mandatory in nature.
Reliance in this regard can be placed upon Gurappa Gugal and others Vs.
State of Mysore : 1969 CriLJ 826 and Shokat Ali Vs. State
tate of Haryna :
Dilbagh Singh vs H.S. Jattana on 25 April, 2017
context can be made to Dilbagh Singh Vs. State of Punjab (P&H) : 2015 (8)
R.C.R. (criminal) 166.
Paban Kumar Gupta @ Pawan Kumar Gupta vs The State Of West Bengal on 1 March, 2022
are conjunctive and not disjunctive, which means that there would be no valid
publication of the proclamation unless all the three modes of publication are
proved. Reliance in this regard can be
be placed upon Pawan Kumar Gupta Vs.
The State of W.B. : 1973 CriLJ 1368.
1