Manga Singh v. State of Punjab

IN

Manga Singh State of Punjab

CORAM : HON

Present: Mr MANDEEP PA

1.

Bharatiya Nagar quashing the im declared as a pro Section 22(c) a Police Station Is

2.

Lea granted bail vi aforementioned trial Court, ho miscommunicat cancelled and Consquently, n

23.01.2025, pro

14.02.2025, it w case was adjour THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

CR Da

VERSUS

N'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDE . M.S.Hundal, Advocate for the p -.- ANNU J. (Oral) e present petition has been pr rik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corr mpugned order dated 17.03.2025 oclaimed person in FIR No.320 and 29 of the NDPS Act and S slamabad, District Amritsar. arned counsel for the petitione ide order dated 04.07.2023 b FIR. Thereafter the petitioner w owever on 04.01.2025, the pe tion with his counsel. Due to his bail bonds and surety bond non-bailable warrants were iss oclamation was issued against was observed that proclamation rned to 17.03.2025 for recordin JAB AND HARYANA ARH RM-M-12611-2026 (O&M) ate of Decision : 10.03.2026

....Petitioner ....Respondent EEP PANNU petitioner. referred under Section 528 of responding Section 482 Cr.P.C), vide which the petitioner has b 0, dated 27.08.2021 registered un Section 42/52-A of Prisons Act er submits that the petitioner w y the learned trial Court in was regularly appearing before etitioner failed to appear due s non-appearance his bail order w ds were forfeited to the St sued against the petitioner. t the petitioner and thereafter is effected on 13.02.2025 and ng of statement of serving offic

for een nder t at was to was ate. On on

Ultimately on 1 observing that m effecting of proc

3.

Lea contained under as 'proclaimed further submits declared a proc the mandatory r were not compl accused has abs executed. Such material placed

4.

unsustainable an

5.

He trial Court on ea

6.

7.

Mr respondent-State deliberately avo proclamation to

8.

I ha

9.

In petitioner involv is reproduced as

17.03.2025, the petitioner was d mandatory period of 30 days h clamation. arned counsel further submits r Section 82(4) Cr.P.C, the petiti offender', but could only be de that the petitioner was not d laimed offender vide order date requirements of Section 82 Cr.P ied with, as the Court is require sconded or is concealing himself satisfaction must be based upo on record. erefore, it is submitted that nd are liable to be set aside. further submits that the petition ach and every date of hearing. tice of motion. r. H.S.Wadhwa, DAG Punjab e and supports the impugned or oided appearance, leaving the tria secure his presence ave heard learned counsel for the the present case, the main co ve interpretation of provisions of s below:- declared as proclaimed offender has been elapsed from the date that in view of the provisi ioner could not have been decla eclared as 'proclaimed person'. duly served and was consequen ed 17.03.2025. It is contended t P.C. (now Section 84 of the BN ed to record its satisfaction that f and that the warrants could not on the report of execution and the impugned order is lega ner undertakes to appear before accepts notice on behalf of rder, contending that the petitio al Court with no option but to is e petitioner and perused the reco ontention raised on behalf of f Section 82 of the Cr.P.C and sa

r by e of ons ared He ntly that SS) t be ally oner ssue ord.

[4. resp suc thin dec

¶5dec

10.

Fin declared to be Cr.P.C where a person/accused 392, 393, 394, 3 and such perso proclamation, th him a proclaime case, the presen Sections 22(c) a 82(4) Cr.P.C.

11.

Thi counsel for the p 34328-2011 (O& " bei issu eva Where a proclamation publis pect of a person accused of an 2, 304, 364, 367, 382, 392, 393, 2, 436, 449, 459 or 460 of the In ch person fails to appear at the sp e proclamation, the Court may, nks fit, pronounce him a pr claration to that effect. The provisions of Sub-Sectio claration made by the Court und e proclamation published under S nally, it has been argued that a proclaimed offender in the pr a proclamation published under of an offence punishable under 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 40 on fails to appear at a specifie he Court may after making such ed offender and make a declara nt petitioner was being prosecute and 29 of NDPS and said offen is Court finds sufficient force in petitioner in this regard. It has b &M) titled as "Rahul Dutta Vs. Till the amendment by Act ing done in respect of a person ued and who has been either ab ade the execution of warrants bu shed under Sub-Section (1) is n offence punishable under sect 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 4 ndian Penal Code (45 of 1860) a specified place and time required y, after making such inquiry as roclaimed offender and make ons (2) and (3) shall apply to der Sub-Section (4) as they apply Sub-Section(1)]" the petitioner has been wron resent case. As per Section 82 r Sub Section 1 is in respect o r Sections 302, 304, 364, 367, 3 02, 436, 449, 459 or 460 of the I d place and time required by h enquiry as it thinks fit pronou ation to that effect. In the pres d for the offences punishable un ces do not find mention in Sect n the submissions made by learn een held by this Court in CRM- . State of Haryana" as follows:- No.25 of 2005, proclamation w against whom a warrant has b bsconding or concealing himself t by way of Act No.25 of 2005, in

s in tion 400, and d by s it e a o a y to ngly 2(4) of a 382, IPC unce sent nder tion ned -M- - was een lf to n

con Sec rec pro offe in pro as wit term exte is d in S Lea pro dea offe opi offe exe dec pro pro nsonance with Section 40(2)(ii), ction 82 Cr.P.C. The offences mentioned in curring nature. All the persons, emselves to evade execution o oclaimed persons but they co fender" only under the provision Section 82(4) Cr.P.C. There oclaimed person and a proclaim ere is a difference of punishment it provides imprisonment which th fine or with both regarding a p ms of Section 82(1) Cr.P.C. a end upto seven years and also w declared a "proclaimed offender I have also minutely examine Section 40(2)(ii) Cr.P.C. and hav 7 IPC are not mentioned in Sect 4, 367, 400 and 459 IPC are arned counsel for the petitioner Cr.P.C. deal with the proclaim ocedure with regard to the attach al with a person who has bee fender. Thus, in view of the aforesaid inion that the terms "procla fender" have different connotati ecution of warrants of arrest issu e IPC which are mentioned in S clared to be a proclaimed offend ovisions of the IPC and the oclaimed person in terms of Secti , sub-section (4) ismade a part n Section 82(4) Cr.P.C. are who are absconding or conceal of warrants of arrest, could ould be declared a "proclaim ns of the IPC which are mention is stark distinction between med offender and for that reas provided under Section 174-A I h may extend upto three years person who has been proclaimed and the imprisonment which m with fine in respect of a person w r" under Section 82(4) Cr.P.C. ed those sections of IPC mention ve found that Sections 435, 450 a tion 82(4) Cr.P.C., whereas Sect re additionally mentioned there has also argued that Sections 83 ed person and provide a compl hment of his property but it does en declared to be a "proclaim d discussion, I am of the conside aimed person" and "proclaim ions. A person who is evading ued under the particular Sections Section 82(4) Cr.P.C., can only der and the persons under the ot laws, can be declared to be ion 82(1) Cr.P.C."

t of of ling be med ned n a son, IPC s or d in may who ned and tion ein. 3 to lete not med ered med s of y be ther

12.

In v the matter of Ra proclaimed offe

13.

Fur in the proclama place. Such date publication of t 14209-2021 titl

26.03.2021, has under:- "(i) for firs Ku

(ii) who him him bef Roh

(iii) bec sat tha des Em U.P

(iv) spe view of the above discussion and ahul Dutta (supra) the petitioner nder in the present case. rther, the requisite date and plac ation requiring such person to ap e must not be less than 30 clear the proclamation. A co-ordinate led "Anita Sharma v. State s summarized the essential requ ) Prior issuance of warrant of a issuance and publication of the st issue warrant of arrest agains mar v. State of Delhi: 2008 Crl. There must be a report before om warrant was issued had ab mself so that the warrant of arr m. However, the Court is not bou fore issuing a Proclamation unde hit Kumar v. State of Delhi:200 ) The Court cannot issue the P cause the Police is asking for i isfied that the person has absc at the warrant of arrest, previo spite reasonable diligence. (See B mperor: AIR 1943 Patna 366 an P.: 1994 Crl LJ (Allahabad HC) ) The requisite date and place fo e proclamation requiring such pe ecified place. d the law laid down by this Cour r has been wrongly declared to b ce for appearance must be specif ppear on such date at the specif r days from the date of issuance e Bench of this Court in CRM-of Punjab ", date of decis uirements of Section 82 Cr.P.C. arrest by the Court is sine qua n proclamation and the Court has st the person concerned. (See Ro . J. 2561). the Court that the person agai bsconded or had been conceal rest could not be executed agai und to take evidence in this reg er Section 82(1) of the Cr.P.C.. ( 08Crl. J. 2561). Proclamation as a matter of cou it. The Court must be prima fa conded or is concealing himself ously issued, cannot be execut Bishundayal Mahton and other nd Devender Singh Negi v. State ) 1783). for appearance must be specified erson to appear on such date at

rt in be a fied fied e an -M-sion . as non s to ohit inst ling inst gard (See urse acie f so ted, rs v. e of

Suc issu oth Ha

(v) pro pro Sin Ash (Cr

(vi) Sec be f in affi tow affi sub and pub pub W.B pro circ Adv eac con ord and reg pro pro ch date must not be less than uance an publication of the proc hers v. State of Mysore 1969 Cr aryna: 2020(2) RCR (Criminal) Where the period between oclamation and the specified date e accused cannot be declared a p oclamation has to be issued an ngh v. State of Punjab (P&II): hok Kumar v. State of Harya riminal) 550) ) The Proclamation has to be pu ction 82(2) of the Cr.P.C. For pu first publicly read in some consp which the accused ordinarily fixed to some conspicuous part o e accused ordinarily resides or t wn or village and thereafter a c fixed to some conspicuous par bclauses (a)-(c) in Section 82 (2 d not disjunctive, which mean blication of the proclamation blication are proved. (See Paw B.: 1973 CriLJ 1368). Where t oclamation has to be additional culating in the place in which visably, proclamation has to be ch of the three copies of the pro nspicuous part of the house or dinarily resides, to some conspic d to some conspicuous part garding publication may be m oclamation. Additional copy oclamation is also required to be n 30 clear days from the date clamation. (See GurappaGugal a riLJ 826 and Shokat Ali v. State 339). issuance and publication of e of hearing is less than thirty da proclaimed person/offender and nd published again. (See Dilba 2015 (8) RCR (criminal) 166 a ana and another : 2013 (4) R ublished in the manner laid down ublication, the proclamation has picuous place of the town or villa resides; then the same has to of the house or homestead in wh to some conspicuous place of su copy of the proclamation has to rt of the Court-house. The th 2)(i) of the Cr.P.C. are conjunct ns that there would be no va unless all the three modes wan Kumar Gupta v. The State the Court so orders a copy of lly published in a daily newspap h the accused ordinarily resid issued with four copies so that o oclamation may be affixed to so r homestead in which the accu cuous place of such town or villa of the Court-house and rep made on the fourth copy of will be required where published in the newspaper.

e of and e of ays, agh and RCR n in s to age be hich uch o be hree tive alid of e of aper des. one ome used age

(vii as Bir

viii) wri spe Suc evid and v. S

(xi) pub Any and nul ano

14.

Per Court, Amritsar

23.01.2025 agai

13.02.2025. On the statement of got recorded and

15.

Thi trial Court does mere fact that th the date of issua the statutory ma must specify a d

i) Statement of the serving office to the date and mode of publ rad Dan v. State: 1958 CriLJ 96

i) The Court issuing the proclam iting in its order that the procl ecified day in a manner specified ch statement in writing by the C dence that the requirements of S d that the proclamation was pub State: 1958 CriLJ 965). ) The conditions specified in Se blication of a Proclamation aga y non-compliance therewith ca d renders the Proclamation and llity. (See Devendra Singh Neg other 1994 CriLJ 1783 and Pa 8)". rusal of the paper book revea r ordered issuance of proclam inst the accused for 14.02.2025, n 14.02.2025, the case was adjo f serving official. On 17.03.2025 d the petitioner was declared pro is Court finds that the aforesaid not satisfy the mandatory requir he case was adjourned for await ance of the proclamation cannot andate. Section 82(1) CrPC cle date and place for appearance of er has to be recorded by the Co lication of the proclamation. ( 65). mation has to make a statemen lamation was duly published on d in Section 82(2)(i) of the Cr.P. Court is declared to be conclus Section 82 have been complied w lished on such day. (See Birad D ection 82(2) of the Cr.P.C. for ainst an absconder are mandato annot be cured as an 'irregular d proceedings subsequent theret gi alias Debu v. State of U.P. a al Singh v. The State: 1955 Cr ls that the learned Judge Spec mation under Section 82 CrPC , which was admittedly effected ourned to 17.03.2025 for record 5, statement of serving official w oclaimed offender. d procedure adopted by the learn rements of Section 82(1) CrPC. T ting completion of one month fr t be treated as due compliance w arly requires that the proclamat f the accused, and such date must

ourt (See t in n a P.C.. sive with Dan ory. rity' to a and riLJ cial on d on ding was ned rom with tion

not less than 30 is not so in the p

16.

It i of the proclamat proclamation p proclaimed offe issued and pub placed upon Dil

17.

In

13.02.2025. Inst the mandatory r publication, the awaiting the pre defect in the pro

18.

requirements of case. Consequen offender is legal

19.

is only to secure voluntarily appr regularly.

20.

Con that the petition so that trial may order dated 17. clear days from the date of pub present case. s well settled that where the per tion and the date fixed for appea roceedings are vitiated and th ender. In such circumstances, a f lished in accordance with law. lbagh Singh vs. State of Punjab, the present case, the proclam tead of issuing a fresh proclamat requirement of fixing a date bey learned trial Court merely adjo esence of the accused. Such adj oclamation proceedings. erefore, this Court has no hesit f Section 82(1) CrPC have not ntly, the proclamation order decl lly unsustainable. e object behind issuance of non e the presence of the accused. In roached this Court and undertak nsidering the totality of circum er can be directed to appear befo y resume. Accordingly, plea of th

03.2025 are set aside to the ex blication of the proclamation, wh riod between the date of publicat arance is less than 30 clear days, he accused cannot be declared fresh proclamation is required to Reliance in this regard is righ , 2015 (8) RCR (Criminal) 166. mation was admittedly effected tion after ensuring compliance w yond 30 clear days from the date ourned the matter to 17.03.2025 journment cannot cure the inher tation in holding that the essen been complied with in the pres laring the petitioner as a proclaim n-bailable warrants or proclamat n the present case, the petitioner ken to appear before the trial Co mstances, this Court is of the vi fore the trial Court/Duty Magistr he petitioner is accepted. Impugn xtent of declaring the petitioner

hich tion d a o be htly on with e of for rent ntial sent med tion has ourt iew ate, ned

'proclaimed per surrender by hi weeks from tod petitioner in Poo

21.

satisfaction of undertaking/affi in future and the

22.

It i Court/Duty Mag vacated.

23.

Wit

24.

All

March 10, 2026 tripti

Whether s

Whether r rson', and he is directed to be re im before the trial Court/Duty M ay subject to payment of Rs.500 or Patients Welfare Fund, PGIME e petitioner shall also furnish fr f the trial Court. Besides, idavit that he will keep appearing e proceedings will not be delayed s made clear that in case, petitio gistrate within a stipulated perio th aforementioned terms, presen l pending miscellaneous applicat

peaking/non-speaking : Speaking eportable

: Yes/No leased on bail, in the eventuality Magistrate within a period of t 00/- as costs to be deposited by ER, Chandigarh. resh bail bonds/surety bonds to petitioner will also submit g during the proceedings of the t d because of his conduct. oner fails to appear before the t od, this order shall be deemed to nt petition stands disposed of. tion(s), if any, stands disposed of (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE

y of two an trial trial o be