Just a moment...
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender was sustainable when the proclamation did not grant the statutory period of thirty days and the prescribed mode of publication was not followed.
Analysis: Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires the Court to have reason to believe that the person has absconded or is concealing himself, to publish a written proclamation fixing a date not less than thirty days from publication, and to ensure publication in the manner prescribed by law. The procedural safeguards are mandatory because they secure a fair opportunity to appear. The record showed that proclamation was issued on 20.08.2014 for 23.08.2014 and the petitioner was later declared a proclaimed offender on 25.09.2014. This did not satisfy the statutory requirement of thirty clear days. There was also nothing to show compliance with the prescribed methods of public reading and affixation.
Conclusion: The order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender was illegal and was rightly set aside.