2025 (6) TMI 176 - SC - Indian Laws

Proclaimed offender or not - whether the proclaimed offender status under the provisions of the Cr.P.C. of an accused can subsist if such accused stands acquitted during trial in connection to the very same offence? - whether the subsistence of the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. is necessary for the authorities to proceed against an accused against whom such a proclamation stands issued under Section 174A of the Indian Penal Code 1860? - HELD THAT - It is the admitted position at the Bar that in subsequent developments after the filing of the special leave petition the Appellant stands exonerated in the germane proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881. The purpose of Section 82 Cr.P.C. as can be understood from a bare reading of the statutory text is to ensure that a person who is called to appear before a Court does so. This Section appears as part of Chapter VI which is titled Process to Compel Appearance . Section 83 to 90 provide for the additional method of attachment of property to the end of securing appearance. Necessarily then some or the other proceeding has to be ongoing for which the presence of such person is necessary. The words of the Section dictate that it can be only issued in respect of a person against whom a warrant has been issued. Neither a warrant nor proclamation subsequent can be conjured up out of thin air - Section 174A IPC inserted by the 2005 Amendment to the Indian Penal Code inserts a substantive offence prescribing punishment of three years or fine or both when such proclamation is issued under Section 82(1) Cr.P.C. and seven years and fine if the said proclamation is under Subsection (4) thereof. The object and purpose of this Section is to ensure penal consequences for defiance of a Court order requiring a person s presence. Thus Section 174A IPC is an independent substantive offence that can continue even if the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is extinguished. It is a stand-alone offence. That being the position of law let us now turn to the present facts. As we have already noted supra the Appellant stands acquitted of the main offence. The Appellant has been acquitted which means that there is no case for which his presence is required to be secured. Conclusion - i) Section 174A IPC is an independent substantive offence that can continue even if the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is extinguished. It is a stand-alone offence. ii) The proclaimed offender status under Section 82 Cr.P.C. ceases to subsist once the accused is acquitted in the trial relating to the same offence. iii) While proceedings under Section 174A IPC cannot be initiated independent of Section 82 Cr.P.C. they can continue if the said proclamation is no longer in effect. Appeal allowed.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Court were:

(a) Whether the status of a proclaimed offender under Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ("Cr.P.C.") can subsist if the accused is subsequently acquitted in the trial pertaining to the same offence;

(b) Whether the subsistence of the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is necessary for authorities to proceed against the accused under Section 174A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC"), which penalizes non-appearance in response to such a proclamation.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (a): Subsistence of proclaimed offender status after acquittal in the same offence

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 82 Cr.P.C. authorizes a Court to issue a proclamation for a person absconding against whom a warrant has been issued, requiring him to appear at a specified place and time. Subsection (4) allows the Court to declare such a person a proclaimed offender if he fails to appear. The Court referred to authoritative precedents defining "absconding" such as Kartarey v. State of U.P. and Jayendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, which emphasize that absconding includes hiding to evade legal process, even from one's own home.

Further, the Court relied on Vimlaben Ajitbhai Patel v. Vatslaben Ashokbhai Patel to highlight the purpose of Section 82 Cr.P.C., which is to secure the presence of the accused, and that once the accused surrenders or is acquitted, the purpose of the proclamation and related attachments ends.

In Raghubir Singh v. State of U.P. and Rahman v. State of U.P., the Court reiterated that absconding is a weak link in establishing guilt and is not conclusive proof of guilt or guilty conscience, as even innocent persons may evade arrest out of fear.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is a procedural tool to secure attendance and is linked to the ongoing proceedings against the accused. If the accused is acquitted in the underlying criminal trial, the rationale for maintaining proclaimed offender status disappears.

Application of law to facts: The appellant was acquitted in the main offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which negates the basis for his proclaimed offender status. Consequently, the Court concluded that the proclamation and the status of proclaimed offender cannot subsist post-acquittal.

Treatment of competing arguments: The High Court had earlier dismissed the quashing petition on the ground that a proclaimed offender cannot maintain such a petition and that validity of the proclamation must be challenged before the issuing Court. However, the Supreme Court found this approach untenable in light of the acquittal and the underlying purpose of Section 82 Cr.P.C.

Conclusion: The proclaimed offender status under Section 82 Cr.P.C. ceases to subsist once the accused is acquitted in the trial relating to the same offence.

Issue (b): Necessity of subsistence of proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. for proceeding under Section 174A IPC

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 174A IPC, introduced by the 2005 amendment, penalizes failure to appear in response to a proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. The punishment varies depending on whether the accused has been declared a proclaimed offender under Section 82(4) Cr.P.C.

The Court examined the text of Section 174A IPC and the related provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C., noting that Section 174A IPC is designed to ensure penal consequences for defiance of a Court order requiring presence.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court held that Section 174A IPC is a substantive, stand-alone offence triggered by the failure to appear at the specified place and time as required by the proclamation. The offence arises at the moment of non-appearance, independent of whether the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. continues to subsist.

The Court reasoned that while proceedings under Section 174A IPC can only commence after the issuance of a proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., they may continue even if the proclamation is subsequently nullified or extinguished, for example, due to acquittal in the original case.

Key evidence and findings: The Court referenced decisions of the Delhi High Court (Mukesh Bhatia v. State (NCT of Delhi), Divya Verma v. State, and Sameena & Anr. v. State GNCT of Delhi) which held that Section 174A IPC is independent of the subsistence of the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Court acknowledged that Section 174A IPC cannot be invoked without a proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. but rejected any interpretation that the offence under Section 174A IPC lapses if the proclamation ceases to exist subsequently.

Application of law to facts: In the present case, the appellant was arrested under an FIR registered under Section 174A IPC and released on bail. Despite the acquittal in the main offence, the Court held that prosecution under Section 174A IPC could continue but recognized that the acquittal may be a ground for the Court to close such proceedings if prayed for and warranted by circumstances.

Conclusion: Section 174A IPC is an independent substantive offence that can be prosecuted even if the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is no longer in effect. However, acquittal in the original offence may justify termination of such proceedings.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Court established the following core principles and final determinations:

"Section 174A IPC is an independent, substantive offence, that can continue even if the proclamation under Section 82, Cr.P.C. is extinguished. It is a stand-alone offence."

"The proclaimed offender status under Section 82 Cr.P.C. ceases to subsist once the accused is acquitted in the trial relating to the same offence."

"While proceedings under Section 174A IPC cannot be initiated independent of Section 82 Cr.P.C., they can continue if the said proclamation is no longer in effect."

"If the accused stands acquitted in the original offence, the Court seized of the trial under Section 174A IPC may take note of such development and treat it as a ground to draw the proceedings to a close, should such a prayer be made and the circumstances so warrant."

Applying these principles to the facts, the Court quashed the proclamation and all criminal proceedings against the appellant, including the FIR under Section 174A IPC, given the acquittal and the settlement of the disputed money.

← Previous Next →