P&H HC Sets Aside Cheque Case Accused’s Proclaimed-Person Declaration Over Procedural Lapse, Gives Him 30 Days To Surrender and Imposes ₹15,000 Costs

In a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the trial Court summoned Binder Singh.

After summons and warrants were returned unserved or unexecuted, the Court issued a proclamation on 18 February 2026 and, by order dated 7 October 2026, declared him a proclaimed person.

The High Court record showed that the proclamation was reported as effected on 15 April 2026, but the serving constable did not appear then; the trial Court later recorded his statement on 7 October 2026 before declaring the petitioner a proclaimed person.

The petitioner challenged that order, arguing that he had not been served and that the proclamation procedure was unlawful.

Section 82 Cr.P.C. permits a court, after issuing a warrant and having reason to believe that the person has absconded or is concealing himself to avoid its execution, to issue a proclamation requiring appearance at a specified place and time not less than 30 days from publication; publication must comply with the statutory modes in Section 82(2).

In Sonu v. State of Haryana, 2021(1) RCR (Criminal) 319, the Court summarised that the statutory conditions for proclamation—including prior issuance of a warrant, judicial satisfaction regarding absconding or concealment, the prescribed notice period and publication procedure, and the Court’s written record of due publication—must be complied with; non-compliance with mandatory requirements invalidates the proclamation and subsequent proceedings.

The Court also emphasised that the required satisfaction must be recorded because of the serious consequences for an accused.

The trial Court had recorded its satisfaction when issuing the proclamation, and the proclamation was reported as effected on 15 March 2026; the petitioner did not appear by the specified date.

However, when the proclamation was returned as effected on 15 April 2026, the serving constable was absent.

The trial Court adjourned the matter and recorded the constable’s statement only on 7 October 2026, when it declared the petitioner a proclaimed person.

The High Court held that the trial Court erred by proceeding in this manner and that the impugned order was therefore unsustainable.

In view of his conduct, it imposed costs of ₹15,000, payable to the District Legal Services Authority, Sri Muktsar Sahib.

The petitioner was directed to surrender within 30 days and, if he applied for bail, the trial Court was to decide the application expeditiously in accordance with law.

If he failed to appear within that period, the petition would be deemed dismissed.