Section 82 Cr.P.C. proclamation requires recorded satisfaction of absconding and specified time and place for appearance.

The petitioner, Md. Sabat, was an accused in Basantrai P.S. Case No. 40 of 2023 for offences under Sections 364, 506, 120B, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code

On August 14, 2024, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Godda, issued a proclamation against the petitioner under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.)

The petitioner moved the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking to quash the said order on the grounds that it was issued without following due process of law

1. Whether the order issuing a proclamation under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. is legally sustainable if the Magistrate fails to record a specific satisfaction that the accused is absconding or concealing himself to evade arrest.

2. Whether the failure to specify a fixed time and place for the appearance of the accused in the proclamation order constitutes a jurisdictional error.

The court applied the mandatory procedural requirements of Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. (corresponding to the relevant provisions of BNSS).

It is a settled principle that the issuance of a proclamation is a "sine qua non" for which the court must record its satisfaction that the accused is absconding or concealing himself to evade arrest

Furthermore, the order must strictly adhere to the statutory requirement of fixing a specific time and place for the appearance of the accused

The court also exercised its inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, to prevent the abuse of the process of law

The High Court scrutinized the impugned order dated August 14, 2024, passed by the CJM, Godda.

The court observed that while issuing the proclamation under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C., the CJM failed to record any subjective satisfaction regarding the petitioner's intent to abscond or conceal himself

The High Court emphasized that such recording is a mandatory legal prerequisite.

Additionally, the CJM's order was found deficient as it did not specify the mandatory time and place for the petitioner’s appearance

The court reasoned that since these "mandatory requirements of law" were ignored, the order lacked legal foundation.

Consequently, allowing the order to stand would result in a grave illegality and constitute an abuse of the process of law

The Court quashed and set aside the impugned order specifically in relation to the petitioner

However, the Court granted liberty to the learned CJM, Godda, to pass a fresh order in accordance with the law

The Criminal Miscellaneous Petition was allowed