SURJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge has been made to the order dtd. 2/4/2021 (Annexure P-5) vide which the petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender in FIR No.009 dtd. 14/1/2021 under Sec. 376 IPC registered at Police Station Dina Nagar, District Gurdaspur.

(2.) The impugned order has been assailed primarily on the ground that the Court gravely erred in observing that despite multiple raids having been conducted at the house of the accused-petitioner Surjit Singh, he had been evading arrest. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the provisions of Sec. 82 Cr.P.C. which were mandatory in nature had not been complied with inasmuch as though on 19/2/2021 vide Annexure P-2, the publication had been issued directing the serving constable to execute it before 22/2/2021 and to appear in the Court for recording his statement qua due execution of proclamation, however, there was no order on record of the said date i.e. 22/2/2021, in the said regard. It has, therefore, been urged that in the aforementioned circumstances there was no manner of doubt that there had been no proper compliance of the mandatory provisions of Sec. 82 Cr.P.C. In support, he has placed reliance upon Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and another : 2013(4) RCR (Criminal) 550; Jagmal Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana and others : 2015(1) RCR (Criminal) 300 and Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Saha Vs. State (Delhi) : 2017(5) RCR (Criminal) 730.

(3.) On being put to notice, the State has filed its reply by way of affidavit of Rajbir Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dinanagar, District Gurdaspur.