Statutory proclamation procedure cannot be stalled by imperfect police execution; coercive steps must proceed against an absconding accused.

Short delay in filing the revision petition was condoned on sufficient cause being shown. On the merits, the court held that a Magistrate cannot refuse to proceed under Sections 82 to 85 of the Code of Criminal Procedure merely because the earlier proclamation was allegedly imperfectly executed by the investigating agency. Where the accused is not traceable, the statutory proclamation process must be carried through in accordance with law, and agency lapses do not justify inaction. The order refusing to proceed was set aside and coercive steps were directed against the accused.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether delay in filing the revision petition deserved condonation; (ii) Whether the Magistrate was justified in refusing to proceed under Sections 82 to 85 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the ground of alleged improper execution of the earlier proclamation.

Issue (i): Whether delay in filing the revision petition deserved condonation.

Analysis: The delay was short and the application disclosed sufficient cause for the belated filing.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the Magistrate was justified in refusing to proceed under Sections 82 to 85 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the ground of alleged improper execution of the earlier proclamation.

Analysis: A court cannot refuse to issue process merely because the investigating agency has acted imperfectly. If the accused is not traceable, the court must ensure that the statutory proclamation procedure is carried through according to law, and alleged lapses by the agency do not justify inaction against the accused. The refusal to proceed on the ground that the earlier proclamation was not properly executed was contrary to law.

Conclusion: The order refusing to proceed was set aside and the Magistrate was directed to take steps under Sections 82 to 85 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded and the matter was restored for coercive process against the accused in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A court must not decline to invoke the statutory proclamation procedure against an absconding accused merely because the investigating agency has earlier failed to execute notices or process perfectly; the court must ensure compliance with law and bring the proceedings to their logical end.

---