Recovery Of Excess Payment Made By Mistake Is Permissible When Employee Furnished An Undertaking To Refund: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Application Under Sec 482 BNSS Is Maintainable Even If No Formal Order Of Arrest Is Passed By CGST Authorities: Allahabad High Court Consensual Physical Relationship Following Three-Year Courtship Does Not Amount To Rape If Marriage Promise Fails: Supreme Court Criminalization Of Civil Disputes | Courts Must Not Engage In Speculative Reasoning While Dealing With Quashing Petitions Under Section 482 CrPC: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money In The Absence Of Proof Of Demand Is Insufficient To Sustain Conviction Under Section 7 And 13 PC Act: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Quash NDPS Proceedings Merely Relying On Jurisprudence Regarding Evidentiary Value Of Confessional Statements: Supreme Court Extra-Judicial Confession Made While In Police Custody Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Supreme Court Taxing Authorities Must Levy Tax Based On The Form Of Goods At The Time Of Sale, Not On Potential End Use: Supreme Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders CBI Probe Into State Corruption Scams After Punjab Police Fails To Act On ED’s Section 66(2) PMLA Referral Section 482 CrPC | FIR Based On Consensual Relationship Gone Sour Cannot Be Sustained To Coerce Marriage: Supreme Court CISF Personnel Soliciting Bribes For Employment Is Guilty Of 'Gross Misconduct' Under Section 18 CISF Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court PIL | State Cannot Use Demolition Powers To Silence Whistleblowers Or Deflect Accountability: Punjab & Haryana High Court Criminal Proceedings Against In-Laws Without Specific Allegations Of Overt Acts Constitute Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 9 CPC | Admission In An Abated Suit Does Not Constitute Estoppel Against Landlord In A Fresh Eviction Proceeding: Calcutta High Court Arbitral Award Cannot Be Set Aside For Non-Adjudication Of Claims Specifically Abandoned By Parties: Delhi High Court Mere Long Possession Is Not Adverse Possession; Defendant Must Prove Hostile Animus To Deny Title Of True Owner: Himachal Pradesh High Court Reopening Of Assessment Under Sec 148A(d) Income Tax Act Cannot Be Based On 'Change Of Opinion' Without Fresh Tangible Material: Gujarat High Court Municipal Authorities Must Initiate Formal Proceedings And Grant Opportunity Of Hearing Before Sealing Premises:  Jharkhand High Court Court Cannot Compel Third-Party To Undergo DNA Test Unless Necessary For Just Adjudication: Madhya Pradesh High Court Trial Court Cannot Defer Bail Application Merely Because A Transfer Petition Is Pending In High Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 108 BNS | Mere Taunts Or Harassment Regarding Not Bearing A Male Child Do Not Constitute Abetment To Suicide: Rajasthan High Court Daily-Wage Employees Treated As Permanent Under 1988 Government Resolution Entitled To Annual Increment Benefits: Supreme Court

30 Days' Period Wrongly Calculated, Proclamation Order Unsustainable in Law: High Court Quashes Declaration of Petitioner as Proclaimed Person

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, presided by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Moudgil, has quashed the proclamation order declaring the petitioner, Rasneet Singh, as a proclaimed person in FIR No.79/2014, observing a critical procedural error in the computation of the mandatory 30-day period under Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.).

Legal Point: The court delved into the legal intricacies surrounding the declaration of an individual as a proclaimed person under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner challenged the order on grounds of incorrect calculation of the mandatory 30-day period stipulated for proclamation under this section.

Facts and Issues: The petitioner was declared a proclaimed person in a case registered under Sections 325, 323, 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The contention was that the 30-day period, crucial for the proclamation process, was not correctly computed by the trial court.

Computation of Period for Proclamation: The Court noted that the 30-day period was incorrectly calculated from the date the court ordered the fixing of the proclamation, not from the date it actually took effect.

Mandatory Requirements under Section 82 Cr.P.C.: The judgment highlighted the non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements, underscoring the necessity for strict adherence to the provisions of Section 82(1) and 82(2) Cr.P.C.

Precedents and References: The court referred to several past judgments, including "Rohit Kumar Vs. State of Delhi" and "Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Haryana," to reinforce the criticality of adhering to the procedural mandates in declaring someone a proclaimed person.

Decision: The High Court set aside the order dated 26th August 2016, declaring the proclamation legally unsustainable due to material procedural irregularities and incorrect computation of the mandatory 30-day period. The proclamation and subsequent proceedings were rendered null and void.

Date of Decision: 22nd March 2024

Rasneet Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another

 

Latest Legal News