Just a moment...
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 proceedings under Sections 82/83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could be initiated against a company in the absence of material showing that the warrant had failed for reasons attracting the statutory preconditions for proclamation.
Analysis: Proclamation and attachment are exceptional coercive measures and can be invoked only when the Court has reason to believe that the person against whom warrant has been issued has absconded or is concealing himself and the warrant cannot be executed. A company, as such, does not abscond in the ordinary sense, and the record showed that the Court had proceeded without noticing the warrant report. The statutory safeguards for issuing proclamation were therefore not satisfied, and such non-compliance was treated as a violation of procedure established by law.
Conclusion: The initiation of proceedings under Sections 82/83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was held unsustainable and was quashed in favour of the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: Proclamation under Sections 82/83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can be issued only on satisfaction of the statutory preconditions of absconding or concealment and failure of execution of warrant; absent such compliance, the proceedings are invalid.