CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High 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