Mandatory proclamation procedure under Section 82 CrPC must be strictly followed; illegal proclamation and consequential FIR were quashed.

Section 82 CrPC requires prior judicial satisfaction that the accused has absconded or is concealing himself, publication of the proclamation in the prescribed modes, and a returnable date not earlier than thirty clear days from publication. Because the Magistrate did not record the necessary satisfaction, the proclamation was not shown to have been published in all mandatory modes, and the date fixed for appearance was the same day as publication, the proclamation order was illegal. The declaration of the petitioners as proclaimed persons could not stand, and the consequential proceedings, including the FIR under Section 174-A IPC, were liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order declaring the petitioners proclaimed persons under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was vitiated by non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of proclamation, including prior judicial satisfaction, proper mode of publication, and grant of not less than thirty clear days for appearance; and whether the consequential FIR under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was liable to be quashed.

Analysis: Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 requires prior issuance of warrant, judicial satisfaction that the accused has absconded or is concealing himself, publication of proclamation in the prescribed manner, and fixing of a date of appearance not earlier than thirty days from publication. The record showed that the Magistrate did not record the requisite satisfaction before directing proclamation. The proclamation was also not proved to have been published in all the mandatory modes, as there was no public reading in the relevant town or village. Further, the proclamation was published on 04.09.2019 for appearance on the same date, and the subsequent adjournment could not cure the defect or extend the statutory period; the proclamation had to be reissued in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The proclamation order was illegal for breach of mandatory procedure and the declaration of the petitioners as proclaimed persons could not stand. The consequential proceedings, including the FIR under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, were liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The petition was allowed and the impugned proclamation order, along with all proceedings flowing from it, was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 renders the proclamation and all consequential proceedings void.

---