Proclamation procedure for absconding accused must be used when non-bailable warrants remain unexecuted, not case termination.

Where an accused on bail absconds and non-bailable warrants remain unexecuted, the proper course under the Code is to invoke the proclamation procedure for an absconding or concealing person. The trial court was not justified in dropping proceedings merely because the warrants were not served through the extradition channel. The Delhi HC therefore set aside the order terminating the case and required the trial court to proceed further in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether proceedings against an accused could be dropped solely because non-bailable warrants remained unexecuted, and whether the trial court ought instead to have proceeded under the proclamation procedure for an absconding accused.

Analysis: The accused had been released on bail but thereafter absented from the court, and non-bailable warrants issued against her could not be executed. In such a situation, the legal course contemplated by the Code was to proceed under the proclamation mechanism for a person absconding or concealing herself so that the warrant cannot be executed. The trial court was not justified in terminating the proceedings merely because the complainant had not secured execution of the warrant through the extradition channel. The order dropping the proceedings was therefore inconsistent with the procedure prescribed by law.

Conclusion: The order dropping the proceedings was set aside, and the trial court was directed to take appropriate further steps in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: When a warrant remains unexecuted because the accused has absconded, the proper statutory course is proclamation proceedings under the Code rather than dropping the case for non-execution of the warrant.

---