Does Non-Compliance With Mandatory Provisions of Section 82 CrPC Vitiate the Declaration of ‘Proclaimed Person’?

Court grants relief where the procedural safeguards under Section 82 CrPC were not followed and absence was not wilful; reaffirms that all cumulative requirements of proclamation are mandatory. This judgment upholds and applies prior precedent and is binding on subordinate courts within Punjab and Haryana.

Summary

Practical Impact

What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note

• Reaffirms that every step under Section 82(2) CrPC is mandatory and must be cumulatively fulfilled, not alternatively.
• Non-receipt of notice/warrant and absence due to legitimate reasons (e.g., illness) cannot be construed as deliberate evasion.
• Lawyers can cite this judgment to challenge proclamation orders where the accused did not have actual notice or absence was not intentional.
• Sets out a procedure where the accused can be permitted to surrender and join the trial upon setting aside a flawed proclamation order.
• Highlights that procedural irregularities in declaring a person proclaimed can be grounds for setting aside such orders.

Summary of Legal Reasoning

• The court carefully examined whether the mandatory procedural safeguards of Section 82(2) CrPC for declaring someone a proclaimed person were followed.
• It considered the precedent in Gurbir Singh Mundi v. State of Punjab, which held that all conditions in Section 82(2) must be satisfied cumulatively, notably including public reading of the proclamation in a conspicuous place.
• The evidence showed the petitioner did not receive notice and absence was explained through medical grounds and location of posting.
• The court concluded that such absence, being non-wilful, does not justify declaration as a proclaimed person, especially in light of non-compliance with mandatory procedures.
• Relief was granted conditionally, requiring surrender and other undertakings, ensuring trial proceedings are not prejudiced.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioner

• Did not receive any notice, bailable or non-bailable warrant from the court.
• Absence was due to medical ailments, including brain surgery and heart condition.
• Absence was not wilful or deliberate; was posted at a different location.
• Ready and willing to join the trial proceedings if given an opportunity.
• Relied on Gurbir Singh Mundi v. State of Punjab and another for mandatory compliance with Section 82(2) CrPC.

State

• Contended that the petitioner was rightly declared proclaimed person for having absented.

Factual Background

The petitioner was declared a proclaimed person by the Magistrate under Sections 138 and 142 of the NI Act in a private complaint case, after non-appearance. Previous warrants could not be executed as the petitioner’s house was found locked and he was posted elsewhere. The petitioner argued he did not receive notice or warrants, and his absence was due to serious health conditions. He expressed readiness to appear before the trial court, challenging the legality of the proclamation due to procedural lapses.

Statutory Analysis

The court analyzed Section 82(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, reaffirming that all its procedural steps—especially reading out the proclamation publicly in a conspicuous place—are mandatory and must be complied with cumulatively, not alternatively. The proclamation is a coercive measure to ensure an accused’s appearance, but strict adherence to the statute is required to avoid miscarriage of justice.

Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary

No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.

Procedural Innovations

No new procedural innovations are noted in this judgment.

Alert Indicators

• ✔ Precedent Followed – Judgment affirms and applies existing precedent (Gurbir Singh Mundi v. State of Punjab and another, CRM-M-49283-2021).

Citations

• Gurbir Singh Mundi v. State of Punjab and another, CRM-M-49283-2021 (P&H)
• No other specific legal citations or neutral citations reported in the judgment.