GURBIR SINGH MUNDI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the instant petition, filed under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dtd. 3/12/2014, whereby he was declared a proclaimed offender by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Moga, in case FIR No. 3 dtd. 5/2/2014 registered at NRI Moga, District Moga.

(2.) The learned Magistrate concerned, through an order made on 3/12/2014, hence enclosed with the petition as Annexure P-2, recorded that as per the statement of the police official concerned, the proclamation, under Sec. 82 Cr.P.C., against accused Gurbir Singh, became published on 1/11/2014. A reading of the afore, reveals that the executing officer went to the house of the accused, and, affixed a copy of proclamation at the gate of the house of accused, and, further that the second copy became affixed at the common place, besides the third copy became affixed at the notice board of the Court, whereas, the fourth copy was produced before the Court concerned. The learned Magistrate concerned, after considering the afore statement, of the police official concerned, made an objective conclusion, that since the period of 30 days, has elapsed since the making of publication of proclamation, and, hence proceeded to make an order, declaring the petitioner a proclaimed person.

(3.) The order carried in Annexure P-2 is challenged, and, also is strived to be quashed by the petitioner, through his recoursing the mandate of Sec. 482 of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner would succeed in his endeavour (supra) in case, upon a reading, of the statement/report of the serving/executing officer, as carried in the impugned order, and, which became depended, upon by the learned Magistrate concerned, to proceed to draw the impugned order, as, carried in Annexure P-2, suffers from a gross perversity, and, infirmity, inasmuch as its breaching the mandate of sub- Sec. (2) of Sec. 82 of the Cr.P.C. In making a determination, whether the mandate occurring in sub-Sec. (2) of Sec. 82 of the Cr.P.C. has been breached, or not, by the learned Magistrate concerned, in his making the impugned order, it becomes imperative to extract provisions thereof, provisions whereof become extracted hereinafter. Importantly so, as on a deep reading thereof(s), all the ingredients carried therein, are required to be completely complied with, both by the executing officer concerned, who made a report/statement, and, also are to be reflected, to be complied with, in the impugned order, as made by the learned Magistrate concerned. A circumspect and deepest reading, of the hereinafter extracted relevant portion of sub-Sec. (2), discloses that the notice of proclamation, is required to be given effect to, or is required to be peremptorily executed in the mode enshrined therein, as its salutary purpose is to bring an awakening in the persons concerned, who purportedly deliberately avoid causing of valid service, upon him/them, for any relevant purpose, rather about the date(s) mentioned therein. Since the afore awakening, carried in sub-Sec. (2), would ensure that may be hence they cause his / their appearance(s) before the Court concerned, as, also hence would obviate the drawings of further stigmatic proceedings contemplated, under Sec. 83 of the Cr.P.C., by the Court concerned. Therefore, all the provisions carried in sub-Sec. (i) of sub-Sec. (2) of Sec. 82 of the Cr.P.C., are to be cumulatively complied, and, or that all the provisions carried in sub-Sec. (i) of sub- Sec. (2) of Sec. 82 of the Cr.P.C., require(s) theirs being meted completest conjunctive compliance by the serving / executing officer, and or that the provisions (supra) are to be not meted compliance in the alternate.