ASHOK KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner-Ashok Kumar has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of the impugned order dated 13.3.2012 (Annexure-P.1). whereby the petitioner was wrongly and illegally declared as proclaimed offender in case FIR No. 04 dated 5.1.2010 registered for the offences under Sections 420, 406, 465, 468, 471 and 120B IPC at Police Station Chandni Bagh, Panipat, as he had been declared a proclaimed offender in contravention of provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. I have gone through the record and have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Advocate General appearing for the respondent-State and have also gone through the original record of the lower Court.

(2.) As per order dated 4.1.2013 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat, the case has been adjourned for 6.3.2013 for issuing of proclamation under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. against petitioner Ashok Kumar The order dated 6.3.2013 shows that proclamation issued against Ashok Kumar received back duly executed. Statement of serving Constable was also recorded. Period of 30 days had not elapsed from the date of publication. Therefore, the case was adjourned to 13.3.2013. On that day the petitioner was declared as proclaimed offender. The original record also shows that the statement of the serving official, namely, ASI Dilbag Singh was recorded on 6.3.2013, who stated that on 9 2.2013, he visited the place of residence of the accused along with proclamation. After reading publicly, the proclamation was affixed at conspicuous part of the house of the accused where he ordinarily resides. A copy of the proclamation was also affixed at conspicuous part of the Court house, which means that the publication was effected on 9.2.2013 for 6 3.2013, which shows that after the publication of the notice, the accused was not given the mandatory period of 30 days to appear before the Court. The mere fact that the Court adjourned it after the period of 30 days will not be treated as compliance of the provisions of Section 82(1) Cr.P.C. where it is provided that:--

(3.) In view of the above provisions of Section 82(1) Cr.P.C., it is clear that the publication was effected on 9.2.2013 and the accused was directed to appear in the Court as per that publication on 6.3.2013 which period was less than 30 days. Therefore, it cannot be held that by passing the impugned order on 13.3.2013, the publication has been effected as per the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. There was no order in the publication for the accused giving specified time and place to appear on 13.3.2013. Therefore, this order is not as per law and the same is set aside. Finding merit in the petition, the same is allowed. The impugned order dated 13.32012 (Annexure-P.1) is set aside. The lower Court record be returned.