HC: Can’t declare person PO if he shifts abroad before order
Saurabh Malik
Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, October 24
In a significant judgment that will change the way accused settled in foreign lands are proceeded against in criminal cases, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that the accused sought to be declared proclaimed offender (PO) should have been served with a notice or at least the prosecution should have made sincere efforts to intimate him of pending proceedings. A person who shifted abroad before the issuance of proclamation and had no knowledge of it could not be declared a PO.
The ruling by Justice Anil Kshetarpal came in a case where the petitioner-accused shifted abroad in January 2008, whereas the order declaring him a proclaimed offender was passed in December 2008. Proclamation was issued a month before that.
As a petition filed by Gurwinder Singh against the state came up for hearing, counsel for the petitioner contended that neither bailable nor non-bailable warrants were ever served upon the petitioner as he had shifted overseas. His counsel further submitted that co-accused in the case had already been acquitted pursuant to a compromise. The state counsel on the other hand submitted that the petitioner was proclaimed offender in two more criminal cases. As such, the court “should not grant indulgence to the petitioner”.
Referring to Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Justice Kshetarpal asserted the procedure prescribed was required to be followed in letter and spirit before a person was proclaimed as n absconder. Proclamation of offender as provided under Section 82 had serious consequences. As such, it was the duty of the Magistrate concerned to ensure that the accused sought to be declared proclaimed offender had been served with a notice or at least the prosecution had made sincere efforts to intimate accused of pending criminal prosecution against him.
“The purpose of declaring offender as proclaimed offender or person is to secure presence of the offender/accused so that the court is in a position to deliver its judgments on merits and award punishment in accordance thereto. Here is a case where petitioner has remained absconder from law for more than 10 years. However, the order passed declaring the petitioner proclaimed offender is not in consonance with the procedure prescribed under Section 82 of CrPC,” Justice Kshetarpal added.
Justice Kshetarpal set aside the order subject to payment of costs of Rs 1 lakh to be deposited with government treasury before seeking bail.
