The High Court clarifies that a person cannot be declared a proclaimed offender unless the court meticulously follows the mandatory procedure under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; any departure from these mandatory safeguards vitiates the proceedings. This judgment upholds and reiterates existing precedent, serving as binding authority within the jurisdiction and persuasive elsewhere. Implications for criminal law practice, especially in serious offences under special acts, are significant.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/37616/2025 of JASKARAN SINGH ALIAS JASKIRNPREET SINGH Vs STATE OF PUNJAB |
| CNR | PHHC011097462025 |
| Date of Registration | 16-07-2025 |
| Decision Date | 01-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding within jurisdiction; persuasive elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing precedent, particularly “Sonu v. State of Haryana, 2021 (1) RCR (Criminal) 319” |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure (Section 82 CrPC procedural safeguards), NDPS Act |
| Questions of Law | Whether strict compliance with Section 82 CrPC is mandatory before declaring a person a proclaimed offender. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, in FIR No. 26622 dated 25-11-2017 (under Section 22 NDPS Act). The petitioner challenged the order citing lack of compliance with Section 82 CrPC, particularly non-publication/affixation procedures and absence of satisfaction as to absconding. The State opposed, arguing compliance and seriousness of the allegations. The trial court’s record showed no proper compliance with Section 82. The High Court found clear violation of procedural mandates. |
| Citations |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that strict, meticulous compliance with all sub-clauses of Section 82(2) CrPC is mandatory—failure at any step vitiates the entire proclamation and subsequent proceedings.
- Clarifies that the trial court must record its satisfaction, based on available material, that the accused is absconding before issuing proclamation.
- Affirms that mere formality or mechanical issuance of proclamation without adherence to procedural safeguards is not sufficient.
- States that procedural lapses cannot be cured as irregularities—such non-compliance amounts to nullity.
- Reminds that where the petitioner has already appeared and is on bail, continuation of proceedings under a defective proclamation is purposeless.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The High Court thoroughly examined Section 82 CrPC and cited a coordinate bench’s decision in Sonu v. State of Haryana, 2021 (1) RCR (Criminal) 319, summarizing the mandatory requirements for issuing a proclamation and declaring a proclaimed offender.
- The court reiterated that requirements under Section 82(2)—public reading, affixation at the accused’s residence and at the court-house, and optionally newspaper publication—are conjunctive and all must be strictly followed.
- Judicial satisfaction regarding absconding/concealing must be recorded with reference to evidence and material on record before issuance.
- Cited consistent precedents (including Rohit Kumar v. State of Delhi, Biraad Dan v. State, among others) which declare the requirements mandatory, and that non-compliance is not a mere irregularity but vitiates the process.
- Examined the facts and found no recorded satisfaction regarding absconding, incomplete or improper publication/affixation, and mechanistic proceedings—thus holding the impugned order unsustainable.
- Recognized that since the petitioner already appeared and proceedings continue, it is futile to allow continuation under a defective proclamation.
- Allowed the petition and quashed the impugned order and resultant proceedings, reaffirming adherence to the statutory mandate.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The impugned order is illegal and unsustainable as mandatory procedure under Section 82 CrPC was not followed.
- No proper publication or affixation of proclamation as per Section 82(2) CrPC.
- No satisfaction of the court recorded regarding absconding/concealing.
- No material was available or scrutinized to support the order.
- The 30-day notice requirement was not fulfilled and no notice was ever served.
Respondent (State)
- The police conducted fair and proper investigation.
- Final report was presented under Section 173 CrPC.
- The trial court followed procedure as per Section 82 CrPC in letter and spirit; no discrepancy is evident from records.
- Opposed the petition, emphasized seriousness of the allegations and compliance by the lower court.
Factual Background
The petitioner was declared proclaimed offender by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, in FIR No. 26622 dated 25-11-2017 registered under Section 22 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Ghallu Khurd, District Ferozepur. The main challenge was to the order dated 31-08-2022, which was alleged to have been passed without fulfilling mandatory procedural requirements under Section 82 CrPC, particularly regarding publication and affixation. The petitioner had subsequently appeared before the court and was granted interim bail.
Statutory Analysis
The court analyzed Section 82 CrPC in detail:
- The section mandates publication of a written proclamation requiring appearance, with at least 30 days’ notice.
- Section 82(2) specifies three conjunctive modes of publication: public reading in the locality, affixation at the accused’s residence (or conspicuous part of town/village), and at the court-house; court may also order publication in a newspaper.
- The court must record satisfaction, with supporting material, that the person is absconding or concealing.
- Non-compliance cannot be treated as mere irregularity but renders proceedings a nullity.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – Reaffirms settled law and mandates strict compliance with existing statutory and jurisprudential requirements.
Citations
- Sonu v. State of Haryana, 2021 (1) RCR (Criminal) 319
- Rohit Kumar v. State of Delhi, 2008 CriLJ 2561
- Biraad Dan v. State, 1958 CriLJ 965
- Dilbagh Singh v. State of Punjab, 2015 (8) RCR (Criminal) 1666
- Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2013 (4) RCR (Criminal) 5500