Harjinder Singh v. State Of Punjab

Ultimately, the proclamation was issued against the petitioner, requiring his appearance before the trial Court. While referring to proclamation notice (Annexure P-2), learned counsel submitted that the said the proclamation was issued on 19.11.2018 and the petitioner was required to appear before the Court on 01.12.2018, i.e. after a period of about 12 days. Learned counsel has further referred to the statement of serving official (Annexure P-3), who clearly stated that he had pasted the copy of public notice at the house of the petitioner as well as notice board of the Court on 30.11.2018, that is one day prior to the date of hearing fixed before the trial Court. On 11.0.2019, since the period of 30 days had not expired, the case was adjourned to 11.01.2019 for the purpose already fixed. Again on 11.01.

2019, the case was adjourned to 16.03.2019. On 16.03.2019, the statement of serving official, namely, ASI Sat Parkash was recorded and the same has been reproduced below:- "Statement of ASI Sat Parkash no.763/Sgr. Posted at PS Lehra Stated that proclamation of accused Harjinder Singh was issued by this Court which is Ex.P15 and the same was marked tome for the purpose of execution and in compliance with the said order. I executed the proclamation of accused and affixed one of the copy of the proclamation at the house of accused, one copy at the house, one copy at bus stand and one at the notice board of the Court and my report regarding the same is Ex.P16, which is my hand writing, bears my signatures and I identify the same."

3.

Thereafter on the same day, i.e. on 16.03.2019, the petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the mandatory provisions of Section 82 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure were not followed in the present case and the impugned order is liable to be set aside by this Court. 4.

On the other hand, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had not appeared intentionally before the trial Court and thus, the impugned order is legally unsustainable. In fact, the petitioner had the knowledge of pendency of case before the trial Court and he has been rightly declared as proclaimed offender.

5.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully with their able assistance.

 



  


 








!!  "


        

           
   

       

   "

 # $ $



   
%&"  '  

  (  "

 

%&" ) %*  #

" #)

   (                   

 "    '  (           +           (        "    '         ( 

"  )    " 
#, - # ( !

  (

  .

 )      

(  "

 
     "

(  *      (   
  "

(   *      (" 

 (  .

!

 

((          (  ) "       



'"           (    "  )# $/0

 ( ) 12

    

    

    



     

    

 

        

    

 

           

 



"   

  

#

  

 

 

     

    !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

$ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

3,)(  ))# $/0



     (  .

    (                    

 !

 ((      '       "            )# $

 '(      )  "       '    ( 

 "  4

% &

 "



  
#

$  %& ' 




()()*++),  

'( 3'  )  5   )           "

  "                   "  )       "    "

         " ,      ( )        '     "

 ( " 

5 "    '   

 '  "

  5

  

.

/
*20       " "(  "   # $/0  8.

In the present case also, the mandatory provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. have not been complied by the trial Court. It is apparent from the statement of the serving constable as well as proclamation dated 19.11.2018 (Annexure P-2) that on 19.11.2018, the petitioner was required to appear before the court on 01.12.2018. Even the proclamation was published on 30.11.2018, i.e. one day prior to the date of hearing fixed before the trial Court, thus, the statutory notice of 30 days, as provided by Section 82 Cr.P.C. was not granted to the petitioner. Even though the matter was further adjourned twice, but it can never be construed as sufficient compliance of the provisions of Section 82(1) Cr.P.C. Thus, the trial Court had not complied with the provisions of Section 82 (1) Cr.P.C. while declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender.

) &

 "  

    

   " 



"   





     

"





  



*

      

   (               

     





 





 &  +$,-



                 

    #

   

  "   

   



 .

 "            

   

"       







 &  +$,-"

 " 

 





        "



  

/  

 &  +$-" 

   



  

  



0   

  

    &  %,(1-1 & 

%,(1-" 



  

2

 



 

 "  !



 



 



 

   (  , &  +$-  

  



2" 



  

   !

 

 



 



0"   

"



  - 

- 2

- 

*

2  

  

  



  

  

 

       3

    

     $ -  .

- / $

   /



*0 4 5  

   

 "

 

   







  



  

 " /6  



under Sections 406/420/120-B IPC registered at Police Station Lehra, District Sangrur and at the worst, he could have been declared as a proclaimed person and not a proclaimed offender.0"  

  

   

   &

 "&  +$$-   

"

      

   

 

 

 '( 3$/0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** $/0


     /0  / 0     " 

() ( 7 /0   * "    "  (  "   () 7 /0    * "  

 27 /0  "    %

    "

   (  

  (  $/0 *** *** *** *** *** *** ***4 $  

 " 

 



  

 1&&- 1

! -(7  !

      

"      



 

    .

 "

         

    



 

"       0"  

 "  

  





  &  +$$-

  (  

    "  

  



    

   "    

   

 

  



  

 

 

   , 0  

  





-

 " "





 

 7 &

 

     

 "   

 

 





   

  #

 " 

  



  81 9  8:9  

 !

 

 

" 



    

  

   

8  



 

  " 

  

   !

 "  

  

 

  "# $

$%&'%()(*+ !

,

-./0& 1 )22 $1 3 5&$ #6 )22  4 5&$ #6