BHUBANESWAR SINGH DEO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order dated 22.6.2004 passed in G.R. No. 218 of 2004 wherein the J.M.F.C., Khariar issued proclamation under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the Petitioner and his wife and simultaneously ordered for attachment of their properties is under challenge in this Misc. case under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) THE fact giving rise to this Misc. case succinctly stated is that on the report of the O.I.C. Khariar Police Station a case under Sections 342/324/34 I.P.C. against the Petitioner (3) and his wife, Puspalata Singh Deo was registered by the J.M.F.C. Khariar. Subsequently on the prayer of the Investigating Officer, Section 326 I.P.C. read with Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000 was added to the same. On 18.6.2004 on the prayer of the Investigating Officer N.B. Ws. of arrest were issued against the accused persons. On 22.6.2004 processes under Section 82 and 83 Code of Criminal Procedure were directed to be simultaneously issued against them with direction to appear before the aforesaid Court or at Khariar Police Station on or before 29.6.2004; on which date since the Magistrate did not receive any intimation either regarding appearance of the accused persons at the police station or regarding execution of the processes under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure adjourned the case to 22.7.2004 awaiting for the same. On receipt of D.R. No. 916 dated 24.6.2004 from the O.I.C., Khariar Police Station, wherein it was intimated that four Buses bearing Registration Nos. OR -08 -A -7707, OR -08 -A -5039, MP -23 -0A -2144, ORH -3383 and one Indica Car bearing No. CG -04 -B -3205 belonging to the accused persons were seized by him, the case record was put up on 13.7.2004 and the fact of seizure was reflected in the order -sheet. The Petitioner filed a petition under Section 85 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the courts below for release of the seized vehicles in his favour but the same was turned down vide order -dated 10.8.2004. Instead of challenging this order the Petitioner challenges the order -dated 22.6.2004 where proclamation and order of attachment were ordered to be issued under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure simultaneously, as mentioned earlier.

(3.) AS per this provision the one month time has to be reckoned from the date of publishing the proclamation and not from the date of its issuance. So even if it is held that the appearance of the accused persons including the Petitioner was extended up to 22.7.2004 still then since the order for issuance of processes under Section 82 and 83 Code of Criminal Procedure was passed on 22.6.2004 and as such one month time from the date of publication was not given, the order for issuance of process under Section 82 Code of Criminal Procedure is bad in law. The accused persons (absconders) are not bound to obey such an order. The order dated 22.6.2004 being bad in law the subsequent orders passed thereto were also illegal.