Present: Mr.Nitesh Sanghi Advocate Vs. State of Punjab - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1127581
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnFeb-10-2014
AppellantPresent: Mr.Nitesh Sanghi Advocate
RespondentState of Punjab
Excerpt:
crm-m- 3837 of 2014 1 in the punjab & haryana high court at chandigarh crm-m- 3837 of 2014 date of decision : 10.02.2014 raghubir singh ..petitioner versus state of punjab ..respondent coram: hon'ble mrs.justice rekha mittal present: mr.nitesh sanghi, advocate for the petitioner. rekha mittal, j.(oral) the petitioner has preferred the petition under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure (in short 'the code') seeking quashing of order dated 06.07.2013 (annexure p10) vide which the petitioner was declared as a proclaimed offender in criminal proceedings pertaining to fir no.60 dated 01.08.2007 under the provisions of the public gambling act, registered at police station kotwali, district ludhiana. counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner absented from the proceedings on 12.03.2013 as he was wrongly informed by the clerk (munshi) of his counsel, the next date of hearing to be 30.03.2013. it is argued that on 04.05.2013 a proclamation under section 82 of the code was issued for 03.06.2013. as per the report of serving police official, the proclamation was carried into effect on 25.05.2013, therefore, the petitioner did not get the requisite period of 30 days to appear before the trial court in pursuance of the proclamation issued for the purpose. it is davinder kumar 2014.02.18 18:08 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document crm-m- 3837 of 2014 2 argued that as the petitioner was not given 30 days in compliance with the provisions of section 82 of the code, order dated 06.07.2013 declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender is illegal and liable to be set aside. in support of his contention, he has relied upon judgment passed by this court in ashok kumar versus state of haryana and another, 2013(4).rcr (criminal) 550. i have heard counsel for the petitioner and gone through the case file. the judicial magistrate ist class (hereinafter referred to as “the trial court”.) passed an order dated 04.05.2013 for issuance of proclamation against the accused (petitioner herein) for 03.06.2013. on 03.06.2013 the proclamation with report of the serving official was received and the case was adjourned for securing the presence of serving official for 06.07.2013. on 06.07.2013, the court passed the following order:- “in view of the contents of the application, personal presence of the accused rakesh kumar is exempted for today only. as per the report of executing official proclamation of accused raghbir singh was effected by him on dated 25.05.2013. the statutory period of 30 days has already elapsed. as such the accused raghbir singh is declared as proclaimed person. necessary intimation in this regard be sent to concerned police station. now to come upon 9.7.2013 for consideration on charge.”. the proclamation was duly published, in compliance with the provisions of section 82(2) of the code on 25.05.2013. the proclamation davinder kumar 2014.02.18 18:08 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document crm-m- 3837 of 2014 3 gave sufficient notice to the petitioner requiring him to appear in a particular court at a specific place within a period 30 days from the date of its publication. this apart, in the instant case, the petitioner already knew about the court seized of the matter wherein he had been facing proceedings until he became absent in march, 2013. the mere fact that in the proclamation, the next date fixed before the court was mentioned as 03.06.2013 is not sufficient to accept the contention of the petitioner that he did not get 30 days time to appear in the court in pursuance of the proclamation published in the case. the matter would have been different had the trial court declared the petitioner as a proclaimed person before expiry of 30 days from the date of publication of the proclamation. as has been noticed earlier, the petitioner had been earlier appearing in the proceedings and all of a sudden became absent. he did not bother to put in appearance before the trial court despite expiry of period of about 4 months when he was declared as a proclaimed person. the provisions of section 482 of the code are subservient to the cause of justice and can not be permitted to be misused by those guilty of absconding from the court proceedings. the present petition is nothing but an abuse of the process of the court, which disentitles the petitioner to seek indulgence. dismissed. (rekha mittal) judge february 10, 2014. davinder kumar davinder kumar 2014.02.18 18:08 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Judgment:

CRM-M- 3837 of 2014 1 IN THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M- 3837 of 2014 Date of decision : 10.02.2014 Raghubir Singh ..Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE REKHA MITTAL Present: Mr.Nitesh Sanghi, Advocate for the petitioner.

REKHA MITTAL, J.(ORAL) The petitioner has preferred the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Code') seeking quashing of order dated 06.07.2013 (Annexure P10) vide which the petitioner was declared as a proclaimed offender in criminal proceedings pertaining to FIR No.60 dated 01.08.2007 under the provisions of the Public Gambling Act, registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Ludhiana.

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner absented from the proceedings on 12.03.2013 as he was wrongly informed by the Clerk (Munshi) of his counsel, the next date of hearing to be 30.03.2013.

It is argued that on 04.05.2013 a proclamation under Section 82 of the Code was issued for 03.06.2013.

As per the report of serving police official, the proclamation was carried into effect on 25.05.2013, therefore, the petitioner did not get the requisite period of 30 days to appear before the trial Court in pursuance of the proclamation issued for the purpose.

It is Davinder Kumar 2014.02.18 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 3837 of 2014 2 argued that as the petitioner was not given 30 days in compliance with the provisions of Section 82 of the Code, order dated 06.07.2013 declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender is illegal and liable to be set aside.

In support of his contention, he has relied upon judgment passed by this Court in Ashok Kumar versus State of Haryana and Another, 2013(4).RCR (Criminal) 550.

I have heard counsel for the petitioner and gone through the case file.

The Judicial Magistrate Ist Class (hereinafter referred to as “the trial Court”.) passed an order dated 04.05.2013 for issuance of proclamation against the accused (petitioner herein) for 03.06.2013.

On 03.06.2013 the proclamation with report of the serving official was received and the case was adjourned for securing the presence of serving official for 06.07.2013.

On 06.07.2013, the Court passed the following order:- “In view of the contents of the application, personal presence of the accused Rakesh Kumar is exempted for today only.

As per the report of executing official proclamation of accused Raghbir Singh was effected by him on dated 25.05.2013.

The statutory period of 30 days has already elapsed.

As such the accused Raghbir Singh is declared as proclaimed person.

Necessary intimation in this regard be sent to concerned police station.

Now to come upon 9.7.2013 for consideration on charge.”

.

The proclamation was duly published, in compliance with the provisions of Section 82(2) of the Code on 25.05.2013.

The proclamation Davinder Kumar 2014.02.18 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 3837 of 2014 3 gave sufficient notice to the petitioner requiring him to appear in a particular Court at a specific place within a period 30 days from the date of its publication.

This apart, in the instant case, the petitioner already knew about the Court seized of the matter wherein he had been facing proceedings until he became absent in March, 2013.

The mere fact that in the proclamation, the next date fixed before the Court was mentioned as 03.06.2013 is not sufficient to accept the contention of the petitioner that he did not get 30 days time to appear in the Court in pursuance of the proclamation published in the case.

The matter would have been different had the trial Court declared the petitioner as a proclaimed person before expiry of 30 days from the date of publication of the proclamation.

As has been noticed earlier, the petitioner had been earlier appearing in the proceedings and all of a sudden became absent.

He did not bother to put in appearance before the trial Court despite expiry of period of about 4 months when he was declared as a proclaimed person.

The provisions of Section 482 of the Code are subservient to the cause of justice and can not be permitted to be misused by those guilty of absconding from the court proceedings.

The present petition is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court, which disentitles the petitioner to seek indulgence.

Dismissed.

(REKHA MITTAL) JUDGE February 10, 2014.

Davinder Kumar Davinder Kumar 2014.02.18 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document