Punjab and Haryana High Court compares IPC with BNSS on PO proceedings

Chandigarh, September 24

In a first, the Punjab and Haryana High Court today compared existing provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Bill (BNSS), 2023, to interpret the intent of the legislature on the issue of proceeding against a proclaimed offender (PO).

‘A short, but wrong cut’

A trial court’s action of sending an order’s copy to the local police for initiation of proceedings under Section 174A, IPC, against a person, resulting in FIR registration against him, was ‘a short, but wrong cut’. Justice Arun Monga

Advertisement

The comparison came as Justice Arun Monga made it clear that a trial court’s action of sending an order’s copy to the local police for initiation of proceedings under Section 174A, IPC, against a person, resulting in FIR registration against him, was “a short, but wrong cut”.

Justice Monga also laid down guidelines for issuance of proclamation under Section 82, CrPC, making it clear among other things that the trial court was required to diligently verify whether an individual had indeed absconded or was concealing himself to evade execution of arrest warrant before the issuance of proclamation.

Section 174A covers the offence of non-appearance in response to a proclamation. Justice Monga was of the opinion that the prescribed course for a magistrate, desiring and deciding to proceed against an accused under Section 174 A after declaring him a proclaimed person, was to institute a complaint in writing in the competent jurisdictional court.

Justice Monga observed Section 195 (1) (a) (i) of the code provided that a court would not take cognisance of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188, IPC, except on complaint in writing of public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate to. It was obvious that offence under Section 174A fell within its scope.

Referring to a Delhi High Court judgment, Justice Monga asserted the reasoning given in it was that Section 195 had not been correspondingly amended with the introduction of Section 174A into the IPC as the legislature was conscious that the offence under it was cognisable.

“Section 195, CrPC, was consciously not amended correspondingly to exclude Section 174A from its ambit as is now being proposed through Section 215 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Bill-2023 Bill,” Justice Monga asserted.

Laying down procedural framework for declaring an individual a ‘proclaimed person’ or ‘proclaimed offender’,” Justice Monga emphasised that the court must deliberate upon previous efforts to secure the presence through other legally permissible means, including summons, execution of bailable and/or non-bailable warrants.

The proclamations must specify when and where the accused were to present themselves. Justice Monga mandated strict adherence to all three modes of proclamation publication: public reading, affixation at the individual’s residence and display at the court house. In addition, the court may order publication in a local newspaper, ensuring the accused was aware of the legal proceedings.