Trial Court Cannot Adjourn Case Awaiting Appearance Of Proclaimed Offender, Publication Of Proclamation Mandatory: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that the trial Court could not simply adjourn the case for 30 days awaiting the appearance of the proclaimed offender, publication in accordance with Section 82(2) of CrPC is mandatory.

Section 82 CrPC states that If any Court has reason to believe that any person against whom a warrant has been issued by it has absconded, such Court may publish a written proclamation requiring him to appear at a specific place and at a specified time not less than thirty days from the date of publishing such proclamation. Section 82 (2) CrPC prescribes the procedure for the publication of a proclamation for a person absconding. 

While quashing the proclamation proceedings, Justice N.S. Shekhawat said, "the trial Court could not extend the time by simply adjourning the case for awaiting the appearance of the petitioner and was mandatorily required to issue the proclamation against for publication thereof in accordance with the provisions of Section 82(2) Cr.P.C."

"Apart from that, the proclamation was not read publicly in some conspicuous place in the town/village in which the accused ordinarily resided and the proclamation was not duly published. Consequently, the proclamation and subsequent proceedings were in violation of the law laid down by this Court," added the judge.

These observations were made while hearing a plea challenging an order whereby Sandeep Kaur was declared as a proclaimed offender in a fraud case lodged in 2018. 

It was the petitioner's case that she was on bail and was regularly appearing before the trial Court, however, due to an inadvertent mistake in noting down the date of the hearing, she could not appear on one date.

As a result of the same, her bail was ordered to be cancelled and the bail bonds were ordered to be forfeited to the State and the petitioner was ordered to be served through non-bailable warrants for 24.08.2022.

Thereafter, on 25.08.2022, the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was ordered to be issued against the petitioner and the case was adjourned to 04.11.2022. On 04.11.2022, the proclamation issued against the petitioner was received back duly effected.

Since the proclamation was published on 03.11.2022, i.e., one day prior to the date of hearing fixed before the trial Court for the appearance of the accused, it was apparent that a notice of 30 days from the date of publishing such proclamation was not given to the petitioner. Since, the period of 30 days had not elapsed, on 04.11.2022, the trial Court adjourned the case to 16.12.2022 for awaiting the presence of the petitioner.

Counsel for the petitioner contended that adjourning the matter for a period of more than 30 days for the appearance of the accused before the Court was not sufficient compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C.

After hearing the submissions, the Court said that "on 04.11.2022, the Court of ACJM, Patiala,..held that one month's time has not elapsed after the publication of the proclamation against the petitioner. Consequently, the case was adjourned to 16.12.2022 awaiting the presence of the petitioner."

Justice Shekhawat explained that the trial Court could not extend the time by simply adjourning the case for awaiting the appearance of the petitioner and was mandatorily required to issue the proclamation against for publication thereof in accordance with the provisions of Section 82(2) Cr.P.C., as held by the High Court in Ashok Kumar vs State of Haryana, 2013 (4) RCR (Criminal) 550.

The Court also highlighted that the proclamation was not read publicly in some conspicuous place in the town/village in which the accused ordinarily resided and was not duly published.

Consequently, the Court directed the petitioner to surrender before the trial Court within a period of 06 weeks  and said "Since, the petitioner was already on bail, in the present case, he shall be admitted to bail by the trial Court."

In light of the above, the order set aside the order whereby, the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed offender.

 Mr. G.S.Thind, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Deepinder Singh Brar, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

Title: Sandeep Kaur v. State of Punjab

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 218

Click here to read/download the order