ANTARYAMI BARIK AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.

(2.) The petitioners, being the accused persons in G.R. Case No. 235/2004 of the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Udala, has assailed the order dated 10-11-2005 passed by the said Court issuing processes under Sections 82 and 83 of the Cr. P.C. declaring them as absconders and to attach their property, without specifying the property, to compel them for their appearance on 9-12-2003. The offences alleged in this case are 420/294/506/34 of the IPC.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners drawing attention of this Court to the provisions of Sections 82 and 83 of the Cr. P.C. contends that the very basic requirements of Sections 82 and 83 of the Cr. P.C. have not been satisfied in this case and the order of the learned S.D.J.M., Udala is silent on that score. Bare reading of Section 82 of the Cr. P.C. reveals that 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. So in order to issue a proclamation under sub-section (1) of Section 82 of the Cr. P.C. the Court must be satisfied that a person against whom a warrant has been issued has absconded or is concealing himself so that such warrant cannot be executed, the Court may issue a proclamation under sub-section (1) of Section 82 of the Cr. P.C.