CRM-M- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 136 Jaskaran Singh @ Jaskirnpreet Singh State of Punjab CORAM: Present: SUMEET GOEL 1. 2023, seeking quashing of order dated 31.08.2022 (Annexure P the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur whereby the petitioner was declared proclaimed offender in FIR No.262 dated 25.11. under Section 22 of the NDPS Act Ferozepur. 2. this Court to directed that in case the petitioner caused appearance before the concerned Court, he shall be admitted to interim bail said order, the petitioner appeared before the concerned Court a released on interim bail the order dated record. -37616-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Jaskaran Singh @ Jaskirnpreet Singh V/s State of Punjab CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Piyush Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner (through Video Conference) Mr. Gurpartap S. Bhullar, AAG Punjab. ***** SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral) Present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, seeking quashing of order dated 31.08.2022 (Annexure P the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur whereby the petitioner was declared proclaimed offender in FIR No.262 dated 25.11. under Section 22 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Ferozepur. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the order dated 24.07.2025 passed by this Court whereby it was directed that in case the petitioner caused appearance before the concerned , he shall be admitted to interim bail said order, the petitioner appeared before the concerned Court a released on interim bail. Learned counsel seeks to place on record copy of the order dated 07.08.2025 passed by the trial Court, which is taken on 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-37616-2025 Date of decision: 01.09.202 ....Petitioner ....Respondent MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Piyush Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Gurpartap S. Bhullar, AAG Punjab. Present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, seeking quashing of order dated 31.08.2022 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur whereby the petitioner was declared proclaimed offender in FIR No.262 dated 25.11.2017 registered at Police Station Ghall Khurd, District Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of passed by this Court whereby it was directed that in case the petitioner caused appearance before the concerned , he shall be admitted to interim bail by the said Court. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner appeared before the concerned Court and was . Learned counsel seeks to place on record copy of passed by the trial Court, which is taken on .2025 Present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 1) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur whereby the petitioner was registered Ghall Khurd, District Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of passed by this Court whereby it was directed that in case the petitioner caused appearance before the concerned Pursuant to the nd was . Learned counsel seeks to place on record copy of passed by the trial Court, which is taken on AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.01 18:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 2.1. impugned order declaring the illegal and unsustainable as the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. has not been adhered to. Learned counsel has further iterated that the proclamation was neither duly published in contemplated under Section 82(2) Cr.P.C. nor was it affixed at the residence of the petitioner as is evident from the statement of the serving official. It has been further submitted that the statutory requirement of granting of 30 days was never served with proper notice of the proceedings dated 31.08.2022. Learned counsel asserts that the impugned order has been passed without properly scrutinizing or verifying the authenticity of the report submitted by the process server. Consequently, the order declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed offender is unsusta quashed. 3. Sharma, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Rural), Ferozepur, District Ferozepur, submission in tandem with this reply and has opposed the petition in hand. While refuting the case of the petitioner, detailed arguments concerning the merits of the case were made and it is argued that the offence alleged against the petitioner i According to learned State counsel, the Police has conducted proper investigation and after completion of the same, final report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C., 1973 was presented by the Police. Mo been stated that the learned Court below followed the procedure as laid -37616-2025 Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the impugned order declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed offender is patently illegal and unsustainable as the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. has not been adhered to. Learned counsel has further iterated that the proclamation was neither duly published in contemplated under Section 82(2) Cr.P.C. nor was it affixed at the residence of the petitioner as is evident from the statement of the serving official. It has been further submitted that the statutory requirement of granting of 30 days was not fulfilled and despite repeated adjournments the petitioner was never served with proper notice of the proceedings dated 31.08.2022. Learned counsel asserts that the impugned order has been passed without properly scrutinizing or verifying the authenticity of the report submitted by the process server. Consequently, the order declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed offender is unsustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to be Referring to short reply by way of an affidavit of Sharma, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Rural), Ferozepur, District Ferozepur, on behalf of State of Punjab submission in tandem with this reply and has opposed the petition in hand. While refuting the case of the petitioner, detailed arguments concerning the merits of the case were made and it is argued that the offence alleged against the petitioner is serious as he is indulged in illegal activity. According to learned State counsel, the Police has conducted proper investigation and after completion of the same, final report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C., 1973 was presented by the Police. Mo been stated that the learned Court below followed the procedure as laid 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner as a proclaimed offender is patently illegal and unsustainable as the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. has not been adhered to. Learned counsel has further iterated that the proclamation was neither duly published in the manner contemplated under Section 82(2) Cr.P.C. nor was it affixed at the residence of the petitioner as is evident from the statement of the serving official. It has been further submitted that the statutory requirement of granting notice was not fulfilled and despite repeated adjournments the petitioner was never served with proper notice of the proceedings dated 31.08.2022. Learned counsel asserts that the impugned order has been passed without properly scrutinizing or verifying the authenticity of the report submitted by the process server. Consequently, the order declaring the petitioner as a inable in the eyes of law and deserves to be eply by way of an affidavit of Karan Sharma, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Rural), Ferozepur, District on behalf of State of Punjab, learned State counsel has raised submission in tandem with this reply and has opposed the petition in hand. While refuting the case of the petitioner, detailed arguments concerning the merits of the case were made and it is argued that the offence alleged s serious as he is indulged in illegal activity. According to learned State counsel, the Police has conducted a fair and proper investigation and after completion of the same, final report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C., 1973 was presented by the Police. Moreover, it has been stated that the learned Court below followed the procedure as laid Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner as a proclaimed offender is patently illegal and unsustainable as the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. has not been adhered to. Learned counsel has further the manner contemplated under Section 82(2) Cr.P.C. nor was it affixed at the residence of the petitioner as is evident from the statement of the serving official. It notice was not fulfilled and despite repeated adjournments the petitioner was never served with proper notice of the proceedings dated 31.08.2022. Learned counsel asserts that the impugned order has been passed without properly scrutinizing or verifying the authenticity of the report submitted by the process server. Consequently, the order declaring the petitioner as a inable in the eyes of law and deserves to be Karan Sharma, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Rural), Ferozepur, District s raised submission in tandem with this reply and has opposed the petition in hand. While refuting the case of the petitioner, detailed arguments concerning the merits of the case were made and it is argued that the offence alleged s serious as he is indulged in illegal activity. fair and proper investigation and after completion of the same, final report under reover, it has been stated that the learned Court below followed the procedure as laid- AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.01 18:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- down under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 in letter and spirit and no discrepancy whatsoever is forthcoming from the records of the case. 4. carefully perused the record of the case. 5. proclaimed offender unless the procedure prescribed under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is meticulously followed. Section 82 are mandatory in nature and non entire proceedings. In the present case, the proclamation dated 28.07.2022 is not shown to have been executed in conformity with Section 82(2). 6. provisions of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court below Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 mandatory requirements of law. the petitioner as proclaimed offender, failed to satisfy itself regarding due execution of proclamation and proceeded in a mechanical manner. Such an order being violative of mandatory provisions of law, cannot be sustained. Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 reads as under: -37616-2025 down under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 in letter and spirit and no discrepancy whatsoever is forthcoming from the records of the case. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and carefully perused the record of the case. The law is well settled that a person cannot be declared a proclaimed offender unless the procedure prescribed under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is meticulously followed. It is trite l Section 82 are mandatory in nature and non entire proceedings. In the present case, the proclamation dated 28.07.2022 is not shown to have been executed in conformity with Section 82(2). I find the course adopted by the provisions of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court below has committed illegality by issuing the said proclamation under Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 mandatory requirements of law. The learned Court below, while declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender, failed to satisfy itself regarding due execution of proclamation and proceeded in a mechanical manner. Such an ing violative of mandatory provisions of law, cannot be sustained. Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 reads as under: “82. Proclamation for person absconding. to believe (whether after taking evidence or not) tha 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. (2) The proclamation shall be published as follows: (i)(a) it shall be publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which such person ordinarily resides; 3 down under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 in letter and spirit and no discrepancy whatsoever is forthcoming from the records of the case. counsel for the rival parties and The law is well settled that a person cannot be declared a proclaimed offender unless the procedure prescribed under Section 82 It is trite law that the provisions of Section 82 are mandatory in nature and non-compliance thereof vitiates the entire proceedings. In the present case, the proclamation dated 28.07.2022 is not shown to have been executed in conformity with Section 82(2). nd the course adopted by the Court below is antithesis to the provisions of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The has committed illegality by issuing the said proclamation under Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, without complying the The learned Court below, while declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender, failed to satisfy itself regarding due execution of proclamation and proceeded in a mechanical manner. Such an ing violative of mandatory provisions of law, cannot be sustained. Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 reads as under: 82. Proclamation for person absconding. - (1) 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 less than thirty days from the date of publishing such (2) The proclamation shall be published as follows: - (i)(a) it shall be publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which such person ordinarily resides; down under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 in letter and spirit and no counsel for the rival parties and The law is well settled that a person cannot be declared a proclaimed offender unless the procedure prescribed under Section 82 aw that the provisions of compliance thereof vitiates the entire proceedings. In the present case, the proclamation dated 28.07.2022 antithesis to the provisions of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The has committed illegality by issuing the said proclamation under , without complying the The learned Court below, while declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender, failed to satisfy itself regarding due execution of proclamation and proceeded in a mechanical manner. Such an ing violative of mandatory provisions of law, cannot be sustained. (1) If any Court has reason t 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 less than thirty days from the date of publishing such (i)(a) it shall be publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.01 18:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 7. of the provision of accused in the case of ‘ 319’, held as under: -37616-2025 (b) it shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which such person ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of such town or village; (c) a copy thereof shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the court house; (ii) the Court may also, if it thinks fit, direct a copy of the proclamation to be published in a daily newspaper circulating in the place in which such person ordinarily resides. (3) A statement in writing by the Court issuing the proclamation to the effect that the proclamation was duly published on a specified day, in the manner specified in clause (i) of sub evidence that the requirements of this Section have been complied with, and that the proclamation was published on such day. [(4) Where a proclamation published under sub a person accused of an offence punishable under Sections 302, 304, 364, 367, 382, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 402, 436, 449, 459, or 460 of the Indian Penal Code (4 appear at the specified place and time required by the proclamation, the Court may, after making such inquiry as it thinks fit, pronounce him a proclaimed offender and make a declaration to that effect. (5) The provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3) shall apply to a declaration made by the Court under sub-section (4) as they apply to the proclamation published under sub-section (1).]” A coordinate Bench of this Court while dealing with invocation of the provision of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against an accused in the case of ‘Sonu v. State of Haryana, 2021(1) RCR (Criminal) held as under: “9. The essential requirements of section 82 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 for issuance and publication of proclamation against an absconder and declaring him as proclaimed person/offender may be summarized as under:- (i) Prior issuance of warrant of arrest by the Court is sine qua non for issuance and publication of the proclamation and the Court has to first issue warrant of arrest against the person concerned. (See Rohit Kumar v. State of Delhi: 2008 Crl. J. 2561). (ii) There must be a report before the Court that the person against whom warrant was issued had absconded or had been concealing himself so tha 4 shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which such person ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of (c) a copy thereof shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the court t may also, if it thinks fit, direct a copy of the proclamation to be published in a daily newspaper circulating in the place in which such (3) A statement in writing by the Court issuing the proclamation to the proclamation was duly published on a specified day, in the manner specified in clause (i) of sub-section (2), shall be conclusive evidence that the requirements of this Section have been complied with, and that the proclamation was published on such day. [(4) Where a proclamation published under sub-section (1) is in respect of a person accused of an offence punishable under Sections 302, 304, 364, 367, 382, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 402, 436, 449, 459, or 460 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), and such person fails to appear at the specified place and time required by the proclamation, the Court may, after making such inquiry as it thinks fit, pronounce him a proclaimed offender and make a declaration to that effect. sections (2) and (3) shall apply to a declaration section (4) as they apply to the proclamation ” A coordinate Bench of this Court while dealing with invocation Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against an Sonu v. State of Haryana, 2021(1) RCR (Criminal) 9. The essential requirements of section 82 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 for proclamation against an absconder and declaring him as proclaimed person/offender may be summarized as (i) Prior issuance of warrant of arrest by the Court is sine qua non for issuance and publication of the proclamation and the Court has to first issue warrant of arrest against the person concerned. (See Rohit Kumar v. State of Delhi: 2008 Crl. J. 2561). (ii) There must be a report before the Court that the person against whom warrant was issued had absconded or had been concealing himself so tha shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which such person ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of (c) a copy thereof shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the court- t may also, if it thinks fit, direct a copy of the proclamation to be published in a daily newspaper circulating in the place in which such (3) A statement in writing by the Court issuing the proclamation to the proclamation was duly published on a specified day, in the section (2), shall be conclusive evidence that the requirements of this Section have been complied with, section (1) is in respect of a person accused of an offence punishable under Sections 302, 304, 364, 367, 382, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 402, 436, 449, 459, 5 of 1860), and such person fails to appear at the specified place and time required by the proclamation, the Court may, after making such inquiry as it thinks fit, pronounce him a sections (2) and (3) shall apply to a declaration section (4) as they apply to the proclamation A coordinate Bench of this Court while dealing with invocation Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against an Sonu v. State of Haryana, 2021(1) RCR (Criminal) 9. The essential requirements of section 82 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 for proclamation against an absconder and declaring him as proclaimed person/offender may be summarized as (i) Prior issuance of warrant of arrest by the Court is sine qua non for issuance and publication of the proclamation and the Court has to first issue warrant of arrest against the person concerned. (See Rohit Kumar v. (ii) There must be a report before the Court that the person against whom warrant was issued had absconded or had been concealing himself so that AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.01 18:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -37616-2025 the warrant of arrest could not be executed against him. However, the Court is not bound to take evidence in this regard before issuing a Proclamation under section 82(1) of the Cr.P.C., 1973. (See Rohit Kumar v. State of Delhi : 2008 Crl. J. 2561). (iii) The Court cannot issue the Proclamation as a matter of course because the Police is asking for it. The Court must be prima facie satisfied that the person has absconded or is concealing himself so that the warrant of arrest, previously issued, cannot diligence. (See BishundayalMahton and others v. Emperor : AIR 1943 Patna 366 and Devender Singh Negi v. State of U.P. : 1994 Crl LJ (Allahabad HC) 1783). (iv) The requisite date and place for appearance must be specified i proclamation requiring such person to appear on such date at the specified place. Such date must not be less than 30 clear days from the date of issuance and publication of the proclamation. (See Gurappa Gugal and others v. State of Mysore : 1969 Cri Haryna : 2020(2) RCR (CRIMINAL) 339). (v) Where the period between issuance and publication of the proclamation and the specified date of hearing is less than thirty days, the accused cannot be declared a proclaimed perso proclamation has to be issued and published again. (See Dilbagh Singh v. State of Punjab (P&H) : 2015 (8) RCR (CRIMINAL) 166 and Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana and another : 2013 (4) RCR (CRIMINAL) 550) (vi) The Proclamation has to be section 82(2) of the Cr.P.C., 1973. For publication the proclamation has to be first publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which the accused ordinarily resides; then the same has to be affixe some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which the accused ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of such town or village and thereafter a copy of the proclamation has to be affixed to some conspicuous part of the Court-house. The t section 82 (2)(i) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 are conjunctive and not disjunctive, which means that there would be no valid publication of the proclamation unless all the three modes of publication are proved. (See Pawan Kumar Gupta v. The State of W.B. : 1973 CriLJ 1368). Where the Court so orders a copy of the proclamation has to be additionally published in a daily newspaper circulating in the place in which the accused ordinarily resides. Advisably, proclamation has to be issued wi one each of the three copies of the proclamation may be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which the accused 5 the warrant of arrest could not be executed against him. However, the Court is not bound to take evidence in this regard before issuing a Proclamation under section 82(1) of the Cr.P.C., 1973. (See Rohit Kumar v. State of Delhi : 2008 Crl. J. 2561). (iii) The Court cannot issue the Proclamation as a matter of course because the Police is asking for it. The Court must be prima facie satisfied that the person has absconded or is concealing himself so that the warrant of arrest, previously issued, cannot be executed, despite reasonable diligence. (See BishundayalMahton and others v. Emperor : AIR 1943 Patna 366 and Devender Singh Negi v. State of U.P. : 1994 Crl LJ (iv) The requisite date and place for appearance must be specified in the proclamation requiring such person to appear on such date at the specified place. Such date must not be less than 30 clear days from the date of issuance and publication of the proclamation. (See Gurappa Gugal and others v. State of Mysore : 1969 CriLJ 826 and Shokat Ali v. State of Haryna : 2020(2) RCR (CRIMINAL) 339). (v) Where the period between issuance and publication of the proclamation and the specified date of hearing is less than thirty days, the accused cannot be declared a proclaimed person/offender and the proclamation has to be issued and published again. (See Dilbagh Singh v. State of Punjab (P&H) : 2015 (8) RCR (CRIMINAL) 166 and Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana and another : 2013 (4) RCR (CRIMINAL) 550) (vi) The Proclamation has to be published in the manner laid down in section 82(2) of the Cr.P.C., 1973. For publication the proclamation has to be first publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which the accused ordinarily resides; then the same has to be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which the accused ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of such town or village and thereafter a copy of the proclamation has to be affixed to some house. The three sub-clauses (a)- (c) in section 82 (2)(i) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 are conjunctive and not disjunctive, which means that there would be no valid publication of the proclamation unless all the three modes of publication are proved. (See Pawan Kumar . The State of W.B. : 1973 CriLJ 1368). Where the Court so orders a copy of the proclamation has to be additionally published in a daily newspaper circulating in the place in which the accused ordinarily resides. Advisably, proclamation has to be issued with four copies so that one each of the three copies of the proclamation may be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which the accused the warrant of arrest could not be executed against him. However, the Court is not bound to take evidence in this regard before issuing a Proclamation under section 82(1) of the Cr.P.C., 1973. (See Rohit Kumar (iii) The Court cannot issue the Proclamation as a matter of course because the Police is asking for it. The Court must be prima facie satisfied that the person has absconded or is concealing himself so that the warrant be executed, despite reasonable diligence. (See BishundayalMahton and others v. Emperor : AIR 1943 Patna 366 and Devender Singh Negi v. State of U.P. : 1994 Crl LJ n the proclamation requiring such person to appear on such date at the specified place. Such date must not be less than 30 clear days from the date of issuance and publication of the proclamation. (See Gurappa Gugal LJ 826 and Shokat Ali v. State of (v) Where the period between issuance and publication of the proclamation and the specified date of hearing is less than thirty days, the n/offender and the proclamation has to be issued and published again. (See Dilbagh Singh v. State of Punjab (P&H) : 2015 (8) RCR (CRIMINAL) 166 and Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana and another : 2013 (4) RCR (CRIMINAL) 550) published in the manner laid down in section 82(2) of the Cr.P.C., 1973. For publication the proclamation has to be first publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in d to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which the accused ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of such town or village and thereafter a copy of the proclamation has to be affixed to some (c) in section 82 (2)(i) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 are conjunctive and not disjunctive, which means that there would be no valid publication of the proclamation unless all the three modes of publication are proved. (See Pawan Kumar . The State of W.B. : 1973 CriLJ 1368). Where the Court so orders a copy of the proclamation has to be additionally published in a daily newspaper circulating in the place in which the accused ordinarily th four copies so that one each of the three copies of the proclamation may be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which the accused AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.01 18:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 8. law that the Court which issues the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C., must record its satisfaction that the accused in respect of whom the proclamation is being made, is absconding or concealing himself to evad his arrest. The predominant requirement for invocation of provisions of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is clearly lacking in the present case. Perusal of order dated shows that no satisfaction has been that the accused warrants of arrest against him cannot be executed. There was no material present before the put forth by the petitioner before this Court, that he was never served with -37616-2025 ordinarily resides, to some conspicuous place of such town or village and to some conspicuous part of the Courthouse and report regarding publication may be made on the fourth copy of the proclamation. Additional copy will be required where the proclamation is also required to be published in the newspaper. (vii) Statement of the serving officer has the date and mode of publication of the proclamation. (See Birad Dan v. State: 1958 CriLJ 965). (viii) The Court issuing the proclamation has to make a statement in writing in its order that the proclamation was duly publ specified day in a manner specified in section 82(2)(i) of the Cr.P.C., 1973. Such statement in writing by the Court is declared to be conclusive evidence that the requirements of Section 82 have been complied with and that the proclamation was published on such day. (See Birad Dan v. State: 1958 CriLJ 965). (xi) The conditions specified in section 82(2) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 for the publication of a Proclamation against an absconder are mandatory. Any non-compliance therewith cannot be cured as the Proclamation and proceedings subsequent thereto a nullity. (See Devendra Singh Negi alias Debu v. State of U.P. and another: 1994 CriLJ 1783 and Pal Singh v. The State: 1955 CriLJ 318) It is pertinent to mention tha law that the Court which issues the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C., must record its satisfaction that the accused in respect of whom the proclamation is being made, is absconding or concealing himself to evad his arrest. The predominant requirement for invocation of provisions of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is clearly lacking in the present case. Perusal of order dated 31.08.2022 shows that no satisfaction has been recorded while issuing the proclamation that the accused-petitioner has absconded or is concealing himself so that warrants of arrest against him cannot be executed. There was no material present before the Court below to record such a satisfaction. Rather put forth by the petitioner before this Court, that he was never served with 6 ordinarily resides, to some conspicuous place of such town or village and t of the Courthouse and report regarding publication may be made on the fourth copy of the proclamation. Additional copy will be required where the proclamation is also required (vii) Statement of the serving officer has to be recorded by the Court as to the date and mode of publication of the proclamation. (See Birad Dan v. (viii) The Court issuing the proclamation has to make a statement in writing in its order that the proclamation was duly published on a specified day in a manner specified in section 82(2)(i) of the Cr.P.C., 1973. Such statement in writing by the Court is declared to be conclusive evidence that the requirements of Section 82 have been complied with and published on such day. (See Birad Dan v. State: (xi) The conditions specified in section 82(2) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 for the publication of a Proclamation against an absconder are mandatory. Any compliance therewith cannot be cured as an 'irregularity' and renders the Proclamation and proceedings subsequent thereto a nullity. (See Devendra Singh Negi alias Debu v. State of U.P. and another: 1994 CriLJ 1783 and Pal Singh v. The State: 1955 CriLJ 318).” It is pertinent to mention that by now it is a settled principle of law that the Court which issues the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C., must record its satisfaction that the accused in respect of whom the proclamation is being made, is absconding or concealing himself to evad his arrest. The predominant requirement for invocation of provisions of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is clearly lacking in the 31.08.2022 passed by the Court below recorded while issuing the proclamation petitioner has absconded or is concealing himself so that warrants of arrest against him cannot be executed. There was no material to record such a satisfaction. Rather, the case put forth by the petitioner before this Court, that he was never served with ordinarily resides, to some conspicuous place of such town or village and t of the Courthouse and report regarding publication may be made on the fourth copy of the proclamation. Additional copy will be required where the proclamation is also required to be recorded by the Court as to the date and mode of publication of the proclamation. (See Birad Dan v. (viii) The Court issuing the proclamation has to make a statement in ished on a specified day in a manner specified in section 82(2)(i) of the Cr.P.C., 1973. Such statement in writing by the Court is declared to be conclusive evidence that the requirements of Section 82 have been complied with and published on such day. (See Birad Dan v. State: (xi) The conditions specified in section 82(2) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 for the publication of a Proclamation against an absconder are mandatory. Any an 'irregularity' and renders the Proclamation and proceedings subsequent thereto a nullity. (See Devendra Singh Negi alias Debu v. State of U.P. and another: 1994 CriLJ t by now it is a settled principle of law that the Court which issues the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C., must record its satisfaction that the accused in respect of whom the proclamation is being made, is absconding or concealing himself to evade his arrest. The predominant requirement for invocation of provisions of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is clearly lacking in the Court below recorded while issuing the proclamation petitioner has absconded or is concealing himself so that warrants of arrest against him cannot be executed. There was no material , the case put forth by the petitioner before this Court, that he was never served with AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.01 18:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- any warrants before issuance of proclamation against him stands fortified upon perusal of order dated 9. Court below the statement of the serving official to hold that the proclamation issued against the petitioner has been effected. A perusal of the serving official d house of the petitioner to serve the arrest warrant issued against the petitioner at his given address in the case but he was not found there. He had pasted one copy of proclamation copy on the impugned order declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender in the case has been totally oblivious of said service report of warrants by the police. As was en (supra), the proclamation has to be published in the manner laid down in section 82(2) of the Cr.P.C., 1973. For publication the proclamation has to be first publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which the accused ordinarily resides; the some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which the accused ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of such town or village and thereafter a copy of the proclamation has to be affixed to some conspicuous part of the Court 10. Procedure having serious ramifications qua the right of the accused concerning his presence in the criminal trial proceedings ought not be and cannot be invoked in casual and -37616-2025 any warrants before issuance of proclamation against him stands fortified upon perusal of order dated 31.08.2022. Strangely the impugned order dated Court below, declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender has relied upon the statement of the serving official to hold that the proclamation issued against the petitioner has been effected. A perusal of the serving official dated 05.08.2022 shows that house of the petitioner to serve the arrest warrant issued against the petitioner at his given address in the case but he was not found there. He had pasted one copy of proclamation on the door of t copy on the common place of village. But the impugned order declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender in the case has been totally oblivious of said service report of warrants by the police. As was enunciated in para 9 (vi) of the judgment in the case of the proclamation has to be published in the manner laid down in section 82(2) of the Cr.P.C., 1973. For publication the proclamation has to be first publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which the accused ordinarily resides; the some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which the accused ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of such town or village and thereafter a copy of the proclamation has to be affixed to some conspicuous t of the Court-house. The provisions of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure having serious ramifications qua the right of the accused concerning his presence in the criminal trial proceedings ought not be and cannot be invoked in casual and cavalier manner. The requirement of 7 any warrants before issuance of proclamation against him stands fortified Strangely the impugned order dated 31.08.2022 passed by the , declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender has relied upon the statement of the serving official to hold that the proclamation issued against the petitioner has been effected. A perusal of the statement of the ated 05.08.2022 shows that on 28.07.2021, he visited the house of the petitioner to serve the arrest warrant issued against the petitioner at his given address in the case but he was not found there. He on the door of the accused and one . But the Court below while passing the impugned order declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender in the case has been totally oblivious of said service report of warrants by the police. unciated in para 9 (vi) of the judgment in the case of Sonu the proclamation has to be published in the manner laid down in section 82(2) of the Cr.P.C., 1973. For publication the proclamation has to be first publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which the accused ordinarily resides; then the same has to be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which the accused ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of such town or village and thereafter a copy of the proclamation has to be affixed to some conspicuous The provisions of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure having serious ramifications qua the right of the accused concerning his presence in the criminal trial proceedings ought not be and cavalier manner. The requirement of any warrants before issuance of proclamation against him stands fortified ed by the , declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender has relied upon the statement of the serving official to hold that the proclamation issued statement of the , he visited the house of the petitioner to serve the arrest warrant issued against the petitioner at his given address in the case but he was not found there. He and one while passing the impugned order declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender in the case has been totally oblivious of said service report of warrants by the police. Sonu the proclamation has to be published in the manner laid down in section 82(2) of the Cr.P.C., 1973. For publication the proclamation has to be first publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in n the same has to be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which the accused ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of such town or village and thereafter a copy of the proclamation has to be affixed to some conspicuous The provisions of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure having serious ramifications qua the right of the accused concerning his presence in the criminal trial proceedings ought not be and cavalier manner. The requirement of AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.01 18:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- recording of satisfaction, that the accused has absconded or is concealing himself so that warrant of his arrest cannot be executed, as embodied in Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is to be scrupulously complied with based on relevant material available on record of the case in that regard. Non as proclaimed offender vitiates the proclamation proceedings initiated against the accused. 10.1. the petitioner has already entered appearance and has been enlarged on bail by the Court below whereinafter the trial is proceeding. Thus, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the criminal pro against the petitioner. Thus, it would be an appropriate case for exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. an end the criminal proceedings 11. (i) (Annexure P whereby the petitioner was declared proclaimed offender in FIR No.262 dated 25.11.201 Station Ghall Khurd, District Ferozepur proceedings initiated (ii) Court pursuant to or said order dated 24.07.2025 is hereby confirmed, subject to the petitioner regularly appearing before the trial Court and cooperating in expeditious disposal of the trial. In case of failure to do so, -37616-2025 recording of satisfaction, that the accused has absconded or is concealing himself so that warrant of his arrest cannot be executed, as embodied in Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is to be scrupulously mplied with based on relevant material available on record of the case in that regard. Non-adherence to said requirement while declaring the accused as proclaimed offender vitiates the proclamation proceedings initiated against the accused. Furthermore, vide order dated the petitioner has already entered appearance and has been enlarged on bail by the Court below whereinafter the trial is proceeding. Thus, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the criminal pro against the petitioner. Thus, it would be an appropriate case for exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C./528 of B.N.S.S., 2023 an end the criminal proceedings against the petitioner In view of the prevenient ratiocination, it is ordained thus: The present petition is allowed and the order dated (Annexure P-1) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur whereby the petitioner was declared proclaimed offender in FIR No.262 dated 25.11.2017 registered under Section 22 of the NDPS Act Ghall Khurd, District Ferozepur proceedings initiated thereto, is quashed. As the petitioner has caused appearance before the concerned Court pursuant to order dated 24.07.2025 said order dated 24.07.2025 is hereby confirmed, subject to the petitioner regularly appearing before the trial Court and cooperating in expeditious disposal of the trial. In case of failure to do so, 8 recording of satisfaction, that the accused has absconded or is concealing himself so that warrant of his arrest cannot be executed, as embodied in Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is to be scrupulously mplied with based on relevant material available on record of the case in adherence to said requirement while declaring the accused as proclaimed offender vitiates the proclamation proceedings initiated more, vide order dated 24.07.2025 passed by this Court, the petitioner has already entered appearance and has been enlarged on bail by the Court below whereinafter the trial is proceeding. Thus, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner. Thus, it would be an appropriate case for exercise of /528 of B.N.S.S., 2023 and to bring to against the petitioner. ratiocination, it is ordained thus: he present petition is allowed and the order dated 31.08.2022 1) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur whereby the petitioner was declared proclaimed offender in FIR No.262 registered under Section 22 of the NDPS Act at Police Ghall Khurd, District Ferozepur and the consequent criminal As the petitioner has caused appearance before the concerned 24.07.2025 earlier passed by this Court, the said order dated 24.07.2025 is hereby confirmed, subject to the petitioner regularly appearing before the trial Court and cooperating in expeditious disposal of the trial. In case of failure to do so, the concerned Court shall be recording of satisfaction, that the accused has absconded or is concealing himself so that warrant of his arrest cannot be executed, as embodied in Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is to be scrupulously mplied with based on relevant material available on record of the case in adherence to said requirement while declaring the accused as proclaimed offender vitiates the proclamation proceedings initiated 24.07.2025 passed by this Court, the petitioner has already entered appearance and has been enlarged on bail by the Court below whereinafter the trial is proceeding. Thus, no useful ceedings pending against the petitioner. Thus, it would be an appropriate case for exercise of and to bring to 31.08.2022 1) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur whereby the petitioner was declared proclaimed offender in FIR No.262 at Police and the consequent criminal As the petitioner has caused appearance before the concerned earlier passed by this Court, the said order dated 24.07.2025 is hereby confirmed, subject to the petitioner regularly appearing before the trial Court and cooperating in expeditious the concerned Court shall be AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.01 18:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- at liberty to take coercive steps against the petitioner including cancellation of his bail. (iii) accordingly. September 01 Ajay -37616-2025 at liberty to take coercive steps against the petitioner including cancellation of his bail. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. September 01, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: 9 at liberty to take coercive steps against the petitioner including cancellation Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No at liberty to take coercive steps against the petitioner including cancellation Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.01 18:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document