2019 (12) TMI 1514 - HC - Indian Laws

Proclamation for person absconding - petitioner was not afforded the requisite period of 30 days for causing his appearance after publication of proclamation notice - HELD THAT - In the present case while publication was effected on 31.5.2018, the accused was required to appear on 1.6.2018. This Court in ASHOK KUMAR VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. 2013 (8) TMI 1146 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT while interpreting the provisions 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 30 days cannot be treated as compliance of provisions of Section 82(1) Cr.P.C. In view of the factual position, wherein a period of only 1 day was afforded for causing appearance after the proclamation was effected and in light of ratio of Ashok Kumar's case, the petition is accepted and the impugned order dated 4.7.2018 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kalka (Annexure P-2) is hereby set aside - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Quashing of FIR and setting aside of the order declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed offender due to nonappearance.
2. Allegation of not following the prescribed procedure under Section 82 Cr.P.C. by the Trial Court.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought the quashing of FIR and setting aside of the order declaring him a proclaimed offender, stating that the matter had been compromised among the parties. The respondent had filed a complaint under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, and due to the petitioner's nonappearance, he was declared a proclaimed offender. The petitioner argued that he was not given the required 30-day period for appearance after the publication of the proclamation notice.

2. The Court examined the proclamation notice, report of the serving official, and the statement of the serving official, which revealed that the proclamation was effected just one day before the nominated date for appearance. The Court referred to Section 82 Cr.P.C., which mandates a clear 30-day period for the accused to appear after the publication of the proclamation. Citing a previous judgment, the Court emphasized the importance of providing the full 30-day period and ruled that an adjournment beyond this period does not comply with the law.

3. Considering the factual position where only one day was given for appearance after the proclamation was effected, and in line with the legal precedent cited, the Court accepted the petition. The order declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed offender was set aside, and the FIR was quashed. The Court highlighted the necessity of adhering to the statutory requirement of providing a full 30-day period for the accused to appear after the publication of the proclamation notice.

4. The judgment serves as a reminder of the procedural requirements under Section 82 Cr.P.C. regarding the period to be afforded to an accused for appearance after the publication of a proclamation notice. It underscores the significance of strict adherence to statutory provisions to ensure fair treatment and procedural justice for the accused in criminal proceedings.