Punjab & Haryana High Court Surprised That Accused Remained Absconding For 15 Yrs, Says Attachment Of Property U/S 83 CrPC Critical Tool

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has taken a stern stand on evasion of arrest, observing that attachment of property is a critical tool to ensure the presence of the accused during trial and also relevant in cases where the accused has been found guilty and he has been ordered to pay a fine or compensation to the victim or the State.

An accused in the case in hand was absconding for the past 15 years and had challenged the order passed in 2008 wherein he was declared as proclaimed offender.

Observing that facts of the case has "prickled the conscience" of the Court, Justice Harpreet Singh Brar said, "It is not fathomable how an accused even after issuance of the order of proclamation is allowed to remain scot free. If any person is allowed to evade his presence during the trial in this fashion, it would not only suffocate the rights of the victim and the society but would also render the entire criminal justice administration ineffective."

The Court further added that it also creates dent in the competence and efficacy of law enforcement agencies, which allowed the accused to remain absconding from the process of law for 15 long years without taking recourse to attachment of property of the person absconding under Section 83 Cr.P.C and initiating action under Section 174A IPC.

Justice Brar opined that the attachment of property under Section 83 CrPC "is a significant component of criminal justice administration, which allows the jurisdictional police authorities to ensure the presence of the accused during the legal process."

These observations came in response to the plea filed by one Darshan Singh, who sought quashing of order passed by JM-I, Amritsar in 2008 in which he was declared as proclaimed offender.

Singh contended that the proclamation had not been issued in compliance of provisions of Section 82 CrPC, according to which 30 days time is to be given to appear from the date of publication.

Considering the submissions, the Court said, "The petitioner has not even made a feeble attempt to show sufficient cause to explain the delay in challenging the impugned order" which was passed in 2008.

The bench raised concern over evasion of arrest for the last 15 years and said that surprisingly no application under Section 83 CrPC was filed before the concerned Court for obtaining necessary directions for attachment of property of the accused person, "who absconded and concealed himself from the process of law for 15 long years."

It is a trite law that the attachment of property is intended to be preventive in nature so that the accused does not dispose or part with the property and remains available for being dealt with in accordance with law during the trial before the court, added the Court.

In the light of the above the Court directed the police to take recourse to the provisions of Section 83 CrPC and Section 174A IPC.

Considering the gravity of the matter, the Court directed Commissioner of Police, District Amritsar and the Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar (Rural)  to furnish year wise details of last 15 years by specifically indicating the following:

(i) Number of persons declared proclaimed offenders each year for the last 15 years.

(ii) Number of persons arrested and produced before the jurisdictional courts after being declared proclaimed offender.

(iii) Number of cases wherein proceedings under Section 83 Cr.P.C. were initiated at the behest of State seeking direction from the court concerned to attach the propertyof the proclaimed offender/person.

(iv) Number of cases wherein action has been taken by the State to initiate proceedings pursuant to issuing of proclamation order under Section 174A IPC.

(v) Whether any special cell has been constituted or periodic exercise was undertaken to arrest accused persons, who have been declared as proclaimed offenders/persons.

 While listing the matter for December 12, the Court appointed Advocate Harkirat Singh Randhawa as amicus curiae.

Appearance: Sandeep Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mohit Thakur, AAG, Punjab.

Case Title: Darshan Singh Vs. State of Punjab

Click here to read/download the order