AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL J.
CRM-46568-2026
Heard.
On oral request of learned counsel for the petitioner, main case is taken on board today itself.
CRM-M-33373-2025 (O&M)
Petitioner Chamkaur Singh, accused in complaint No. NACT/1576/2023 dated 18.08.2023 under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act titled "Gurtej Singh Vs. Chamkaur Singh" has filed this petition under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for quashing order dated 24.04.2025 of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sangrur declaring him a "proclaimed person".
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was summoned as accused in the aforementioned complaint. No summons were ever served upon him nor petitioner was aware of pendency of the complaint. Learned trial Court issued non-bailable warrants against petitioner followed by proceedings under Section 84 BNSS without following statutory procedure. Petitioner was illegally declared a proclaimed person vide impugned order dated 24.04.2025 without publication of proclamation at his correct address. Proclamation was issued by the Court at incorrect address of Patiala, though, petitioner was resident of Barnala. Entire proceedings of publication were sham and on this sole ground, order dated 24.04.2025 declaring petitioner a 'proclaimed person' was liable to be set aside.
Learned State counsel concedes that publication of the proclamation in District Patiala was not in order as petitioner was resident of Bhadaur, Tehsil and District Barnala.
Respondent No.2 did not choose to contest the petition despite service.
Section 84 BNSS which provides for publication of proclamation against a person absconding is reproduced hereunder for the facility of reference:-
"84. 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 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;
(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-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 which is made punishable with imprisonment of ten years or more, or imprisonment for life or with death under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 or under any other law for the time being in force, 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.
(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 co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-41715-2021 titled "Anita Sharma Vs. State of Punjab", date of decision 26.03.2021, has summarized the essential requirements of Section 82 Cr.P.C. 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 Vs. 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 that 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.. (See Rohit Kumar Vs. 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 Bishundayal Mahton and others Vs. Emperor: AIR 1943 Patna 366 and Devender Singh Negi Vs. State of U.P.: 1994 Crl LJ (Allahabad HC) 1783).
(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 an publication of the proclamation. (See Gurappa Gugal and others Vs. State of Mysore 1969 CriLJ 826 and Shokat Ali Vs. State of Haryana: 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 4 of 8 declared a proclaimed person/offender and the proclamation has to be issued and published again. (See Dilbagh Singh Vs. State of Punjab (P&II): 2015 (8) R.C.R. (criminal) 166 and Ashok Kumar Vs. 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.. 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 part of the Court-house. The three sub- clauses (a)-(c) in Section 82 (2)(i) of the Cr.P.C. 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 Vs. 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 ordinarily resides, to some conspicuous place of such town or village and to some conspicuous part of the Court-house 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 to be recorded by the Court as to the date and mode of publication of the proclamation. (See Birad Dan Vs. 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 published on a specified day in a manner specified in Section 82(2)(i) of the Cr.P.C.. 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 Vs. State: 1958 CriLJ 965).
(xi)The conditions specified in Section 82(2) of the Cr.P.C. for the publication of a Proclamation against an absconder are mandatory. Any non-compliance therewith cannot be cured as an 'irregularity' and renders the Proclamation and proceedings subsequent thereto a nullity. (See Devendra Singh Negi alias Debu Vs. State of U.P. and another 1994 CriLJ 1783 and Pal Singh Vs. The State: 1955 CriLJ 318)".
Record shows that petitioner was summoned as accused to face trial under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act vide order dated 28.08.2023. Summons were issued to procure his presence followed by non-bailable warrants and proclamation proceedings.
As per Annexure P1, complaint, petitioner is resident of Bhadaur, Tehsil and District Barnala. Learned JMIC, Sangrur issued proclamation, Annexure P3 against the petitioner on 04.02.2025. The address of the petitioner recorded in the proclamation is as under:
"Chamkaur Singh Kabaria R/o Bajakhan Road, opposite Punjab Shuttering Store, Bhadaur, Tehsil and District Patiala"
On the date fixed for appearance of the Executing Constable i.e. 24.04.2025, statement of ASI Jagtar Singh was recorded by learned JMIC, Sangrur as under:-
"Stated that proclamation of accused Chanakaur Singh was entrusted to me. I affixed proclamation at main gate of accused and notice was publicly read and was affixed at bus stand Patiala their affixed at notice board of the Court. Copy of proclamation entrusted to me is ExPA my report dated 05.03.2025 in this regard is Ex.PB."
Proclamation issued by the Court is required to be published in the manner specific by Section 84(2) BNSS. As per Section 84(2)(i)(a)(b) BNSS, proclamation has to be affixed on some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which the accused ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of such town or village. Though, petitioner was ordinarily residing in Tehsil and District Barnala, the proclamation was issued at incorrect address of Tehsil and District Patiala. The Executing Constable apparently never visited place of residence of the petitioner to publish the proclamation which was published at Bus Stand, Patiala. Publication of the proclamation at Bus Stand of another District indicates that the requisite date and place for appearance of the accused i.e. 24.04.2025 was never notified to him. There was thus, no valid publication of the proclamation. Even the reply of State by way of affidavit of Sukhdev Singh, PPS, DSP, Sub Division, Sangrur concedes that the report submitted by ASI Jagtar Singh regarding service was improper and keeping in view his negligence and dereliction of duty, a recommendation was made for initiating departmental action against him. Issuance of proclamation at incorrect address and publication thereof in District Patiala is patently illegal. Thus, impugned order 24.04.2025 of learned JMIC, Sangrur vide which petitioner was declared a 'proclaimed person' is legally unsustainable and is hereby set aside and quashed.
Petitioner is directed to put in appearance before learned JMIC, Sangrur within a period of 15 days from today and move an application for regular bail which learned trial Court shall decide the same day.
It is, however, clarified that in case petitioner fails to appear before learned trial Court within the stipulated time, the petition shall be deemed to be dismissed.
The petition is allowed, on the terms above.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.