(1) If any Court has reason to believe (whether after taking evidence or not) that any person against whom a warrant has been issued by it has absconded or is concealing himself so that such warrant cannot be executed, such Court may publish a written proclamation requiring him to appear at a specified place and at a specified time not less than thirty days from the date of publishing such proclamation.
(2) The proclamation shall be published as follows:—
(i) (a) it shall be publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which such person ordinarily resides;
(b) it shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which such person ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of such town or village;
(c) a copy thereof shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the Court-house;
(ii) the Court may also, if it thinks fit, direct a copy of the proclamation to be published in a daily newspaper circulating in the place in which such person ordinarily resides.
(3) A statement in writing by the Court issuing the proclamation to the effect that the proclamation was duly published on a specified day, in the manner specified in clause (i) of sub-section (2), shall be conclusive evidence that the requirements of this section have been complied with, and that the proclamation was published on such day.
(4) Where a proclamation published under sub-section (1) is in respect of a person accused of an offence punishable under section 302, 304, 364, 367, 382, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 402, 436, 449, 459 or 460 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), and such person fails to appear at the specified place and time required by the proclamation, the Court may, after making such inquiry as it thinks fit, pronounce him a proclaimed offender and make a declaration to that effect.
(5) The provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3) shall apply to a declaration made by the Court under sub-section (4) as they apply to the proclamation published under sub-section (1).
Tag: CrPC 82 – Proclamation For Person Absconding
Md. Rustum Alam @ Rustam Vs State of Jharkhand on 27 April 2020
Jharkhand High Court (Single Bench) has quashed and set aside 3 Orders of Magistrate Court issued under Sections 73, 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, they being with out any application of mind, issued in mechanical manner and with out any reasons recorded as necessary by Code/Law.
From Para 3,
3. The main contention of the petitioners is that the Court below, in a most mechanical manner issued non-bailable warrant of arrest. In the similar
manner the process under section 82 of the Code and thereafter attachment order in terms of Section 83 of the Code have been issued. It is their contention that, even without receipt of the service report of bailable warrant of arrest, non-bailable warrant of arrest have been issued against the petitioners.
Similarly, without there being any service report of non-bailable warrant of arrest, process under Section 82 of the Code has been issued. Further, without any service of the process under Section 82 of the Code, attachment order in terms of Section 83 of the Code has been issued. It is also the case of the petitioners that the processes are being issued in utter violation of the respective provisions laid down in the Code, i.e. Sections 73, 82 & 83 thereof, thus, these orders need to be set aside.
Md. Rustum Alam @ Rustam Vs State of Jharkhand on 27 April 2020
Disclaimer:
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in or Government websites.
I have no control to remove copies of this document(s) that may be available on websites of High Courts or Supreme Court of India or any of the many other sites, law journal or reporters which carry the same judgment in it’s entirety, not I can remove references/links to this document(s) from the results of Search Engines such as Google.com.
Rajesh Vs The State of Tamilnadu on 17 May, 2018
Excellent judgment which is well supported and reasoned from hon’ble High Court of Madras regarding issuance and recall of NBW non-bailable warrants.
It is further seen that the cases in which trial courts issue Non Bailable Warrants may be broadly classified in four categories namely, (i) the trial court issues Non Bailable Warrants without issuing summons first, (ii) the trial court issues a Non Bailable Warrant when the accused is absent for one or two hearings without inquiring into the cause of absence, (iii) where the accused is absent for one or two hearings and files a petition under Section 317 of the Code, the Court rejects the petition and issues a Non Bailable Warrant and (iv) where the accused has intentionally absented himself from the trial and does not attend any hearings and then, the trial court issues a Non Bailable Warrant.
From Para 18, 19 and 20,
It is also brought to my notice that apart from various other reasons for the long pendency of cases before the trial Courts, the non execution of Non Bailable Warrant is one among the reasons. This fact is reiterated through the last data collected by the NCRB.
In most of these pending cases, it is seen that whenever a Non Bailable warrant is kept pending execution, the usual practice among many of the Court is to adjourn the case on the ground that “Non Bailable Warrant is pending”. In heinous crimes, where there is deliberate and continuous non appearance of the accused, the trial Court may proclaim him as person absconding under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thus, under Section 82 of Cr.P.C., there can be no impediment on the part of the trial Court to pronounce him as a proclaimed offender, instead of keeping the matter pending indefinitely for the purpose of having the warrant executed. Hence, the existence of the fourth category of cases cannot be a ground to preclude the High Court to do justice in the first three categories particularly, when they constitute a major portion of the pending cases in the State of Tamil Nadu, in which, Non Bailable Warrants are pending execution.
Referenced Supreme Court precedent is available here.
Rajesh Vs The State of Tamilnadu on 17 May, 2018Vimalben Ajitbhai Patel Vs Vatslabeen Ashokbhai Patel And others on 14 March, 2008
A landmark judgment from Hon’ble Apex Court which has seen many twists and turn of events spearheaded by the cunning knife who is an Advocate and filed a large number of cases against her husband and in-laws.
- Filing of false 498A in Ahmedabad, that got transferred to Baroda and later dismissed
- Another criminal proceeding against the appellants and their family members under Sections 323, 452, 427, 504, 506 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, the same proceeding has also been dismissed as withdrawn.
- Another criminal case was initiated by her against appellant No.2, his son and another under Section 406, 420, 468 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, which is still pending.
- Another case, being No.2338 of 2006 was filed by her under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code.
- Another case under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code being Case No.2145 of 1993 was filed against the appellants.
- Petitions filed for cancellation of bail granted to appellants, at magistrate, District and High Courts
At the end, the cunning foxy knife bit the dust and had to put her tail between her legs.
Vimalben Ajitbhai Patel Vs Vatslabeen Ashokbhai Patel And others on 14 March, 2008
