Issuance of Section 82 CrPC proclamation requires mandatory recording of satisfaction and specification of time and place for appearance.

The petitioner, Prakash Pradhan, was an accused in Chakardharpur P.S. Case No. 22 of 2010 for offences under Sections 409, 420, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

During the proceedings, the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (SDJM), Porahat at Chaibasa, issued orders on 13.09.2023 and 18.06.2024 for the issuance of a proclamation against the petitioner under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).

The petitioner challenged these orders, along with earlier orders dated 13.01.2023 and 31.05.2023, via a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

However, during the hearing, the petitioner limited the prayer to quashing only the orders related to the Section 82 proclamation.

Whether the orders dated 13.09.2023 and 18.06.2024, issuing a proclamation under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C., were legally sustainable without recording satisfaction of abscondence and specifying a time/place for appearance.

The Court applied the statutory requirements of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which mandates that a court must record its subjective satisfaction that an accused is "absconding" or "concealing himself" to evade arrest as a sine qua non for issuing a proclamation.

Furthermore, the court relied on the settled legal principle that any order issued under Section 82 Cr.P.C. must explicitly mention the specific time and place for the appearance of the accused to be valid.

The Court observed that the orders passed by the SDJM, Porahat at Chaibasa, failed on two mandatory procedural grounds.

First, the Magistrate did not record any formal satisfaction based on materials in the record that the petitioner was intentionally absconding or concealing himself to avoid the execution of a warrant.

Second, the impugned orders failed to specify the "time and place" for the petitioner's appearance, which is a mandatory directive under the statute.

The High Court rejected the State's argument that the mere issuance of the proclamation implied the existence of justifying materials, holding instead that the failure to comply with these "mandatory requirements of law" rendered the orders an abuse of the process of the court.

The High Court quashed and set aside the said orders against the petitioner.

The Court granted liberty to the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate to pass fresh orders in accordance with the law.

The prayers to quash the earlier orders dated 13.01.2023 and 31.05.2023 were rejected as not pressed.