Proclamation proceedings under Section 82 CrPC must strictly adhere to the statutory requirements—including a clear 30-day notice period from the date of publication; non-compliance vitiates both the proclamation and subsequent proceedings. This case upholds and crystallizes settled law, confirming binding authority for all Punjab & Haryana trial courts when declaring accused persons as proclaimed offenders.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/10043/2024 of SUKHBIR SINGH ALIAS MONU Vs STATE OF PUNJAB |
| CNR | PHHC010245862024 |
| Date of Registration | 22-02-2024 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Bench | Single Judge Bench |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Punjab & Haryana |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms settled Supreme Court and High Court precedents |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure (CrPC) |
| Questions of Law | Does non-compliance with the mandatory 30-day notice under Section 82 CrPC vitiate proclamation? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The statutory requirements under Section 82 CrPC — including a clear 30-day notice period from the date of publication — are mandatory. Any failure to comply renders not only the proclamation but all consequential actions null and void. Non-adherence cannot be cured by mere adjournment; a fresh proclamation compliant with the statute is required. Courts must record satisfaction regarding abscondence or concealment of the accused before issuance. The process is strictly to be followed in letter and spirit, as per binding authorities including “Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana” and “Sonu v. State of Haryana”. The impugned order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender, with only a 6-day notice, and subsequent proceedings were set aside as being vitiated by illegality. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Statutory construction of Section 82 CrPC; requirement for a clear 30-day notice period; necessity of recording of satisfaction about abscondence; all modes of publication (reading aloud in locality, affixation at residence and court-house) mandatory and conjunctive, not disjunctive. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | FIR No. 11644 dated 09.12.2006, Police Station Shri Hargobindpur, District Batala, under Sections 326, 452, 323, 427, 506, 148, 149, 120-B IPC. Judicial Magistrate declared petitioner “proclaimed person” via order dated 10.03.2012, fixing appearance with only 6 days’ notice and without fresh proclamation. Petitioner challenged proclamation on ground of non-compliance with Section 82 CrPC. Court held that due notice period and satisfaction about abscondence were absent. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Punjab & Haryana for proceedings under Section 82 CrPC. |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, especially where similar statutory wording and legal principles apply. |
| Follows | Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana; Sonu v. State of Haryana; other High Court/Supreme Court rulings on Section 82 CrPC. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Mandatory 30-day notice period under Section 82 CrPC must be provided; shorter notice invalidates the proclamation.
- Satisfaction regarding abscondence or concealment must be recorded by the Magistrate prior to proclamation.
- All statutory modes of publication (public reading in locality, affixation at residence, affixation at court-house) are conjunctive and mandatory.
- Non-compliance cannot be cured by adjournment; a fresh, valid proclamation is compulsory.
- Proceedings and orders stemming from a defective proclamation (including declaring a person a “proclaimed offender”) are vitiated and liable to be quashed.
- Lawyers should challenge faulty proclamations at the earliest and demand strict proof of statutory compliance on record.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court reiterated the mandatory nature of Section 82 CrPC: No one can be declared a proclaimed person unless all procedural safeguards, especially the clear minimum 30-day notice from the date of proclamation’s publication, are met.
- It relied explicitly on the Supreme Court/High Court rulings (notably Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana and Sonu v. State of Haryana) that mere adjournment cannot cure the failure to give the full statutory notice.
- The Judgment emphasized that all three forms of publication set forth in Section 82(2)—public reading, affixation on house, and affixation at court-house—are conjunctive and must all be performed.
- Courts must record their satisfaction based on material that the accused has absconded/concealed himself so that warrants cannot be executed.
- In the present case, the record revealed no such satisfaction and only a 6-day notice was given, rendering the proclamation void.
- All subsequent proceedings, including the impugned order declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed person, were found to be illegal and quashed.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- Order declaring petitioner a proclaimed person is wholly illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable.
- Mandatory 30-day notice not given; only 6 days’ notice was afforded.
- Court failed to issue a fresh proclamation for adjourned dates.
- No prior satisfaction recorded regarding abscondence before issuing proclamation.
- Proclamation initiated without first executing or attempting arrest warrants—this is a sine qua non for Section 82 CrPC.
- Relied on Supreme Court/High Court precedent mandating strict compliance before declaring an accused as a proclaimed person.
Respondent/State:
- Investigation conducted fairly and properly; offence alleged is serious.
- During trial, petitioner failed to appear before the court; bail and surety bonds were forfeited and non-bailable warrants issued.
- Court below complied with required procedures and followed the law in both letter and spirit.
- The proclamation was duly published and served—petitioner avoided appearance, necessitating his being declared a proclaimed person.
- Dismissal of the petition was prayed for as no deviation from the procedure was reflected in the records.
Factual Background
The petitioner was named as an accused in FIR No. 11644 dated 09.12.2006 at Police Station Shri Hargobindpur, District Batala, invoking Sections 326, 452, 323, 427, 506, 148, 149, and 120-B IPC. During trial, the petitioner failed to appear in court, resulting in forfeiture of bail/surety bonds and issuance of non-bailable warrants. Subsequently, the Judicial Magistrate, vide order dated 10.03.2012, declared the petitioner a “proclaimed person,” providing only 6 days’ notice without issuing a fresh proclamation for the adjourned date. The petitioner challenged the proceedings, citing violation of statutory mandates under Section 82 CrPC.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 82(1) requires a Court to have reason to believe the accused has absconded or is concealing himself, and mandates issuance of proclamation.
- The date fixed for appearance in the proclamation must not be less than 30 days from the date of its publication.
- Section 82(2) sets out mandatory, conjunctive modes for proclamation publication: (a) public reading in locality, (b) affixation at accused’s residence, (c) affixation at court-house.
- These publication methods are strict and cumulative, not alternatives; non-compliance vitiates proceedings.
- The purpose is protection of the accused’s right to participate in trial and due process.
- Satisfaction about abscondence/concealment must be specifically recorded before invocation.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations noted beyond strict restatement and clarification of Section 82 CrPC’s mandatory requirements and the invalidity of non-compliance.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed