Emphasizing clarity in Section 82(1) CrPC, the Madhya Pradesh High Court annulled a proclamation order by a Magistrate, which allowed less than twenty days for the absconding individuals to appear.
Justice Dinesh Kumar Paliwal, in a single-judge bench, pointed out an evident mistake in the Magistrate's order, as it did not adhere to the 30-day period mandated by the statute.
When reaching the conclusion that there appears to be a procedural inconsistency with the statutory requirements, the Jabalpur bench made the following observation:
"It is evident from the record that the procedure outlined in Section 82 of Cr.P.C. was not properly adhered to. Given this situation, this Court is left with no choice but to annul the order issued by the learned JMFC."
Section 82(1) of the CrPC states that if there's a belief that a person has absconded after a warrant has been issued and it can't be executed, the court can issue a written proclamation. This proclamation should require the person to appear at a designated place at a specified time, which should be no less than thirty days from the date of publishing the proclamation.
The High Court has instructed the Judicial First-Class Magistrate to issue a new order in accordance with the law if the police submit a new application for a proclamation.
The individuals who challenged the proclamation dated 07.08.2023 were accused of violating Sections 34 and 306 of the IPC. Initially, the Magistrate had issued non-bailable warrants against them, but the police couldn't execute them despite their efforts. Subsequently, the police filed an application under Section 82 CrPC for a proclamation. The order issued on 07.08.2023 required the accused to appear in court by 25.08.2023, or they would be declared as 'proclaimed offenders.'
In the High Court, the petitioners argued that the statutory maximum of thirty days from the proclamation's publication should not be exceeded. The state, on the other hand, asserted that the petitioners had been absconding since 05.07.2023 and had no intention of appearing in court. The state attempted to dismiss the petitioners' arguments as merely 'technical.'
After considering arguments from both parties, the order from the Judicial Magistrate First Class in Bada Malhara was invalidated, and the petition was resolved accordingly
TAGS: High Court Petitioners Statutory Limit Proclamation Respondent State Absconding
