The Patna High Court has reiterated that the issue of process of proclamation and seizure under Sections 82 and 83 of the CrPC respectively is procedurally deficient in the absence of service report for summons and warrants.

Justice Partha Sarthy held that trial courts must register their satisfaction regarding the deliberate avoidance of service, before resorting to proclamation. The only school observed,

“The trial court proceeded with the matter without there being any report of service of summons or bailable arrest warrant. The procedure adopted by the learned trial court was to issue a non-bailable warrant of arrest, proceeding under Section 82 and then under Section 83 Cr.PC, even without recording its reasons and satisfaction that the applicants were deliberately avoiding meaning.

“The procedure for passing orders under Section 82 Cr.PC as well as Section 83 Cr.PC was clearly contrary to the procedure prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The same being therefore not durable, they are both likely to be canceled”, » added Judge Sarthy.

According to the complaint filed by the opposite party No. 2 before the Court of the High Court of Magistrates, he performs the functions of supervisor of the transport agency Rohtas, supervising the reservations of vehicles inside the factory for the loading and unloading. It was alleged that the petitioners, who were the driver and conductor of a truck, used a fraudulent owner’s book to facilitate loading of the material into the truck and collected Rs. 18,740 as rent. A complaint was then filed.

The attorney representing the plaintiffs argued that the trial court’s order in the complaint showed no record of service of summons or execution of warrants of arrest or non-parole against the plaintiffs.

He further contended that in the absence of a report of service, the orders passed under Sections 82 and 83 of the Cr.PC were passed illegally and should not have been issued in the absence of compliance with the requirements fundamental procedural requirements. Issuance of proceedings under section 82 (proclamation for absconding person) and section 83 (seizure of property of absconding person) requires clear proof that the accused deliberately avoided meaning, which, according to counsel, had not been established in this case.

Alternatively, counsel for the respondents contended that the summons was duly issued and after the petitioners failed to appear in response, the bail warrants were issued, followed by no bail warrants. Counsel further contended that the trial court acted correctly in continuing the proceedings since the petitioners failed to appear despite multiple opportunities.

The High Court, after examining the record of the case, observed that although the case was heard on 21 separate dates, there was no record of service of a non-bailable warrant of arrest.

The court pointed out that the trial court had issued process under Section 82 of the CrPC without any report of service and without recording satisfaction that the petitioners were avoiding service. Further, the trial court issued the proceedings under Section 83 of the CrPC even though the service report for the proceedings under Section 82 of the CrPC was still awaited.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the application, while setting aside the orders passed against the petitioners under Sections 82 and 83 of the CrPC in the plaint.

Case Title: Ajeet Kumar v. State of Bihar and Anr.

Click here to read the judgment