Reiterating the settled legal position, the Court holds that every mandatory procedural step prescribed under Section 82 CrPC (including public reading, affixation, and written satisfaction about absconding) must be meticulously followed before declaring an accused as a proclaimed offender. Failure of strict compliance vitiates the entire proclamation and subsequent proceedings. The judgment upholds existing precedent and serves as binding authority for trial courts in NDPS and other criminal cases.
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 authority for courts within Punjab and Haryana |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms settled position; follows multiple prior High Court and Supreme Court judgments |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure (Section 82 CrPC), NDPS Act |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that the mandatory procedure in Section 82 CrPC is to be strictly adhered to before a person can be declared a proclaimed offender. This includes public reading, affixation at specified locations, and a written statement of satisfaction by the issuing court that the accused is absconding and the warrant cannot be executed. Any deviation or non-compliance with these requirements vitiates the proclamation and subsequent criminal proceedings. In this case, the trial court’s proclamation order was found to be mechanical, lacking proper satisfaction and procedural compliance, and was thus quashed. The principle is re-affirmed in the context of the NDPS Act and criminal law generally. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Section 82 CrPC interpreted as mandatory, not directory; all steps under Section 82(2) are conjunctive, not disjunctive; non-compliance is not a curable “irregularity” but renders proceedings a nullity; reliance on Supreme Court and High Court precedents in this context. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioner was declared proclaimed offender by the Additional Sessions Judge in a NDPS case (FIR No. 26622 dated 25.11.2017 u/s 22 NDPS Act, Police Station Ghall Khurd, District Ferozepur) without due compliance of Section 82 CrPC. The impugned order dated 31.08.2022 was passed mechanically, without record of satisfaction, publication, or proper notice. The petitioner subsequently appeared and was granted interim bail. |
| Citations |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within Punjab and Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts; trial courts in other jurisdictions handling proclamation proceedings |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirmation that all steps under Section 82(2) CrPC (public reading, affixation at house & court house, etc.) are mandatory and conjunctive; omission of any renders the proclamation illegal.
- Recording of the Court’s satisfaction (in writing) regarding absconding is not an empty formality — failure to do so vitiates the entire process.
- Non-compliance cannot be treated as a curable irregularity; the Court uses strong language: entire proceedings are a “nullity.”
- Lawyers can immediately invoke this authority to challenge proclamation orders that are mechanically passed without evidence of due procedure.
- The presence of the accused after such faulty proclamation cannot cure the defect — subsequent bail or appearance does not validate the earlier illegal order.
- The judgment confirms that the integrity of proclamation under Section 82 must be strictly guarded, especially in NDPS and other grave offences.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court scrutinised the impugned order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender and compared the procedure with the requirements under Section 82 CrPC.
- It reiterated (citing Sonu v. State of Haryana and others):
- Prior issuance of arrest warrant is sine qua non for proclamation.
- The court must record satisfaction that the accused is absconding/concealing to evade warrant.
- Publication must be by all three methods: public reading, affixation at house/village and court house (as per Section 82(2)(iii)(a)-(c)), all are conjunctive and mandatory.
- The proclamation must give not less than 30 clear days for appearance; otherwise, it is invalid and fresh proclamation is required.
- Statement of the serving officer regarding method of service must be recorded by the Court.
- The Court must put on record, in writing, that all publication requirements are fulfilled.
- Failure at any stage is not an “irregularity” but vitiates the proceeding.
- Applying this to the facts, the High Court found no record of satisfaction, defective publication, and thus the proclamation & all proceedings stood vitiated.
- The petition was allowed, order quashing the proclamation and consequent criminal proceedings.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The impugned order declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed offender is illegal and unsustainable due to non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements under Section 82 CrPC.
- The proclamation was neither duly published nor affixed as required by law.
- The mandatory 30-day notice was not served/provided, despite repeated adjournments; the petitioner never received proper notice.
- The order was passed without properly scrutinising or verifying the authenticity of police/process-server reports.
Respondent (State)
- Opposed the petition stating that the offence was serious and the petitioner was indulging in illegal activity.
- Claimed a fair and proper investigation was conducted and proclamation was issued in the manner laid down by law (Section 82).
- Asserted that the trial court followed the legal process without discrepancy.
Factual Background
A case was registered against the petitioner under Section 22 of the NDPS Act via FIR No. 26622, dated 25.11.2017, Police Station Ghall Khurd, District Ferozepur. The trial court declared the petitioner a proclaimed offender vide order dated 31.08.2022, mechanically and without recording proper satisfaction or adherence to publication requirements under Section 82 CrPC. The petitioner, upon directions of the High Court, later appeared in court and was released on interim bail, after which he sought quashing of the proclamation order and related criminal proceedings.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 82 CrPC was closely interpreted by the Court, which emphasised that each procedural step (Section 82(1)–(2)) is mandatory, not directory.
- The publication procedure in Section 82(2) is conjunctive: public reading in the accused’s locality, affixing at house/home/village, and at the court-house.
- The Court must specify a period of not less than 30 days from publication for appearance.
- A written record by the Court as conclusive evidence of due publication is essential.
- Non-compliance (even of a single step) vitiates the proclamation and all proceedings based thereon.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinion is recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural precedents or major directions beyond strict reaffirmation of existing interpretive standards for Section 82 CrPC were introduced in this judgment.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – Existing settled law is meticulously affirmed and applied.
Citations
- Sonu v. State of Haryana, 2021 (1) RCR (Criminal) 319
- Rohit Kumar v. State of Delhi, 2008 CriLJ 2561
- Gurappa Guggall v. State of Mysore, 1969 CriLJ 826
- Shokat Ali v. State of Haryana, 2002(2) RCR (Criminal) 399
- Dilbagh Singh v. State of Punjab, 2015 (8) RCR (Criminal) 1666
- Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2013 (4) RCR (Criminal) 5500
- Pawaan Kumar Gupta v. State of W.B., 1973 CriLJ 1368
- Devender Singh Negi v. State of U.P., 1994 CriLJ 1783
- Birad Dan v. State, 1958 CriLJ 965
- Pal Singh v. The State, 1955 CriLJ 318