In CRM-M-2075-2020-PUNJ HC- P&H HC sets aside order declaring petitioner as proclaimed offender after considering that summons were sent to factory address/residential address of owners of factory where petitioner worked as peon despite availability of petitioner’s correct address Justice Jasjit Sigh Bedi [07-07-2022]

Read Order: Karam Singh @ Karam Chand v. State of Punjab

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, July 21, 2022:  The High Court of Punjab and Haryana has set aside an order declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed offender where the authorities for “reasons best known to them”, sent all the summons to the factory address/residential address of the owners of the factory where the petitioner worked as a peon despite knowing the residential address of the petitioner, 

The Bench of Justice Jasjit Sigh Bedi was dealing with a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the impugned order of the Trial Court whereby the petitioner was declared as a proclaimed offender in a case wherein an FIR under Sections 25 of the Arms Act and Section 420 IPC was registered. 

Essentially, the petitioner was working as a Peon with an Industrial Unit (Hasbee Air Gun Factory) engaged in the manufacturing of air guns, as well as shotguns having a licence issued by the District Magistrate, Ropar. 

An FIR was registered under Sections 25 of the Arms Act and Section 420 IPC against the factory owners and two workers (including the petitioner) with the allegation of manufacturing illegal and unlicensed air guns by the owners of the industrial unit. 

The petitioner was released on bail in the aforesaid FIR by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kharar, following which a charge sheet was filed against the accused. The Ld. Judicial Magistrate issued summons to all the accused vide order dated March 23, 2004, for May 01, 2004, and thereafter on May 01, 2004, for June 05, 2004.

On June 5, the Magistrate recorded that the summons of the accused was received back unserved and the summons was again issued for August 20, 2004, on which date the factory owners appeared. Resultantly, the Court issued the bailable warrants of the petitioner and the other accused, but the petitioner did not appear, leading the Court to issue bailable warrants to the petitioner for April 29, 2005.

Thereafter fresh bailable warrants of the petitioner were issued but to no avail. Thus, the Magistrate issued non-bailable warrants to the petitioner vide order dated October 05, 2005, January 09, 2006, March 17, 2006, and June 12, 2006, at the factory address. The petitioner was not served on the aforesaid dates and therefore the summons was issued to the petitioner. 

Following this, the Magistrate, Mohali vide order dated October 06, 2006, issued a notice of proclamation under Section 82 Cr.PC to the petitioner. Later, the proclamation notice issued vide order dated April 30, 2007, was effected by the Summon Staff, Mohali at the factory address and he made a statement regarding the same before the Magistrate. 

In view of the said statement and the report of the Summon Staff, the JMIC declared the petitioner as proclaimed offender vide its order dated July 23, 2007. 

It was the case of the petitioner’s counsel that despite the petitioner furnishing an address of a village in Himachal Pradesh as his residential house, before the police authorities as well as with the court, the summons, warrants and proclamation notice were served repeatedly at the factory address in Mohali where the petitioner was working as Peon at the time of registration of FIR or at the residential address of the owners. Thus, he contended that the mandate of Section 82 Cr.P.C. was not complied with. 

Even otherwise, the Counsel argued, the petitioner was under the bonafide belief that the police authorities had not filed any challan and the case stood cancelled and regarding the delay in filing the present petition, it was contended that the petitioner who was working as Clerk of an advocate was made aware of the proceedings pending against him only in December of 2019.

After considering the above submissions, the Court observed that the petitioner was appearing continuously before the Magistrate on every date up till the filing of the challan and that the petitioner was a peon working in the factory premises of the main accused and as such the permanent address of the petitioner could never have been that of the factory.

Also, from a perusal of the proclamation order and the notice affixed, the Court observed that the residential address of the petitioner (belonging to a village in Himachal Pradesh) was mentioned in the said proclamation order and the notice, thus proving that the Authorities were aware of the permanent address of the petitioner but for reasons best known to them, they sent all the summons to the factory address/residential address of the owners of the factory.

In view of the aforementioned discussion, the Court concluded that the proper procedure as envisaged under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was not followed while declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender. 

Resultantly, the present petition was allowed.