P&H HC Sets Aside Excise Accused’s Proclaimed-Person Declaration: Five-Day Deadline Could Not Be Cured By Adjournment

The petitioner was an accused in an FIR registered under Section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, and was granted bail on 3 September 2021.

After he failed to appear, the Trial Court issued coercive processes and, on 24 August 2023, directed issuance of a proclamation requiring him to appear on 17 October 2023.

The proclamation was effected on 12 October 2023, giving him only five days to appear.

On 17 October, the Trial Court noted that the statutory period of thirty days had not elapsed and adjourned the matter to 17 November 2023; it then declared him a proclaimed person without issuing a fresh proclamation.

The petitioner challenged that order under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, corresponding to Section 84 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, requires a proclamation to specify a place and time for appearance not less than thirty days from its publication.

The requirements governing proclamation proceedings are mandatory; where the specified appearance date falls short of that period, the defect cannot be cured by merely adjourning the matter, and a fresh proclamation is required.

The Court relied on Sonu v. State of Haryana, 2021 (1) RCR (Criminal) 319; Davinder Singh Chawla v. State of Haryana, CRM-M-15728-2021, decided 9 April 2021; and Harwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, CRM-M-58579-2025, decided 23 February 2026.

The proclamation was effected on 12 October 2023 and required the petitioner to appear on 17 October, affording only five days rather than the prescribed thirty days.

Although the Trial Court recognised this shortfall and adjourned the matter to 17 November, the proclamation itself remained defective: the later passage of thirty days did not satisfy the requirement that the proclamation specify an appearance date at least thirty days after publication.

As no fresh proclamation was issued, the declaration based on the defective proclamation could not be sustained.

The petitioner’s prior failure to appear nevertheless warranted costs and a direction to attend future proceedings.

The petitioner was directed to deposit ₹25,000 in costs with the Punjab and Haryana High Court Legal Services Committee within six weeks and to appear on the date fixed and on each subsequent hearing date unless personally exempted in accordance with law.

The Trial Court remained at liberty to initiate fresh proclamation proceedings as warranted; the ruling did not address the merits of the criminal case.