Netai Chandra Das vs State Of West Bengal

Arindam Sinha, J

This revision petition is directed against orders dated 13th March, 2019 and 17th March, 2019, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Serampore in connection with GR case no.1228 of 2013 arising out of Serampore Police Station case no.279 of 2013 dated 5th July, 2013 under sections 420/406/409/120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Mr. Majumder, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner, who is one of the two accused and submits, the order for proclamation and attachment is bad relying on judgment dated 21st March, 2014 of coordinate Bench in CRR 3554 of 2013 (Nanki Bhayna @ Ratan Bhayna & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal), paragraph 8, which is reproduced below.

"In the case in hand the approach of the court below is completely erroneous and without any authority of law. The learned court below committed a gross illegality in passing an order of proclamation and attachment simultaneously with the order of issuance of arrest. No order of warrant of arrest can be passed without first coming to a prima facie conclusion on the basis of police report that the accused person is evading arrest and to ensure his presence such order is needed to be passed. Similarly issuance of proclamation against an accused presupposes the court concerned has reason to believe that the person against whom warrant of arrest has been issued, is absconding or concealing himself so that warrant of arrest cannot be executed. The order of attachment of property, movable or immovable or both, of an accused against whom warrant of arrest has been issued can be made only in case he is a proclaimed offender and not otherwise. As provided in section 83 CrPC the order of attachment of property can be made for reasons to be recorded in writing.

Furthermore the order impugned on the face of it is a non-speaking and laconic order. The learned court below made the order merely on the prayer of the Investigating Officer of the case without scrutinising the facts of the case and any application of mind. The order impugned is glaring example of misusing the judicial discretion.

In the result this criminal revision is allowed and the order impugned is quashed."

He submits, Court below has not recorded reasons to believe that the person against whom warrant of arrest has been issued is absconding or concealing himself so that the warrant cannot be executed. There should be interference on revision. Mr. Imam, learned advocate, Additional Public Prosecutor appears on behalf of State and submits, he has not received instructions and as such leaves it to Court.

It appears warrant of arrest was directed to be issued by order dated 18th February, 2016. The order says, inter alia, case diary was received and cognizance taken. It is thereafter on 13th March, 2019 that the Court saw the prayer of concerned SI, for issuance of proclamation and attachment against the accused persons. Court has ascertained from Mr. Majumder that his client was never arrested in connection with the case. In the circumstances, Court is convinced that impugned order is one, which speaks of reason to believe that petitioner was and has been evading arrest, necessitating direction for issuance of proclamation and attachment.

In view of aforesaid, there can be no interference.

The revision petition is dismissed.