Harmonious interpretation of proclamation provisions confirmed that listed offences do not bar proclaimed-offender declarations in other cases.

Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was construed harmoniously with the related penal scheme under Sections 174A and 229A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to secure appearance of absconding accused. The Court applied contextual and purposive interpretation and held that Section 82(4) does not create an exclusive class of offences limiting proclaimed-offender declarations only to the listed offences. The distinction between a proclaimed person and a proclaimed offender was treated as one of mode and consequences of declaration, not a ground to invalidate proclamation solely because the alleged offences fall outside the enumerated list. The challenge failed and the proclamation order was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether Section 82(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 confines the declaration of a proclaimed offender only to the offences expressly listed in that provision, and whether an order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender can be quashed solely because the alleged offences are not among those listed.

Analysis: Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 must be read as a whole and in harmony with the related amendments brought in by the same legislative scheme, including Section 174A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 229A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. A literal reading of sub-section (4) in isolation would create an artificial distinction and render the scheme of compelled appearance and penal consequences ineffective. The provision was understood as part of a broader mechanism for securing the presence of absconding accused, where proclamation, non-appearance, attachment, and enhanced punishment operate together. The Court applied harmonious construction, contextual construction, and purposive interpretation to hold that the listed offences in Section 82(4) do not create an exclusive class barring proclamation in other cases. The distinction between a proclaimed person and a proclaimed offender was held to be only in the mode and consequences of declaration, not a basis to nullify the proclamation merely because the offence is outside the enumerated list.

Conclusion: The challenge based solely on the ground that the offences were not included in Section 82(4) failed, and the proclamation order was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The petition was rejected because no statutory violation in the proclamation proceedings was established, and Section 82(4) was held not to restrict proclaimed-offender declarations only to the listed offences.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 82(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is to be construed harmoniously with the wider scheme of compulsory appearance and penal provisions, so it does not operate as an exclusive limitation on the declaration of a proclaimed offender.

---