- Case
- DALJIT SINGH v. THE STATE OF HARYANA (Supreme Court of India, 02-01-2025)
- Law
- Code of Criminal Procedure, Indian Penal Code, Negotiable Instruments Act.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: Section 82 Cr.P.C. is discussed extensively regarding proclamation for absconding persons. The judgment quotes the provision in full, detailing the conditions under which a court can issue a proclamation, the manner of publication, and the effect of such publication. It also discusses the purpose of Section 82, which is to secure the presence of the accused. The judgment refers to Section 83 to 90 Cr.P.C. which provide for the additional method of attachment of property to secure appearance. Section 482 Cr.P.C. is mentioned as the section under which the Appellant's petition was dismissed by the High Court. The court notes that the validity of a proclamation can be raised before the court that issued it.
Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 174A IPC is discussed in detail. The judgment notes that this section lays down penal consequences for intentionally evading the process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. It states that Section 174A IPC was inserted by the 2005 Amendment and creates a substantive offense. The judgment clarifies that while proceedings under Section 174A IPC cannot be initiated independently of Section 82 Cr.P.C., they can continue even if the proclamation under Section 82 is no longer in effect. The judgment also acknowledges that the Delhi High Court has taken the view that Section 174A IPC is a stand-alone offense. The court also notes that if the accused is acquitted of the original offense, the court seized of the trial under Section 174A IPC can take note of such development and close the proceedings.
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is mentioned. The judgment notes that the Appellant stands exonerated in the proceedings under this section, and this fact forms the backdrop for the questions arising in the appeal.
General Principles of Law: The judgment discusses the meaning of "absconder" with reference to case laws like *Kartarey v. State of U.P.* and *Jayendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra*. It also discusses the evidentiary value of a person absconding, citing *Raghubir Singh v. State of U.P.* and *Rahman v. State of U.P.*, noting that absconding is not conclusive evidence of guilt. The judgment emphasizes that the value of absconding as evidence depends on the circumstances of each case.
