Criminal Misc. No. M-6265 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Criminal Misc. No. M-6265 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision:05.03.2009 Kamaljit Singh .....Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Mr. Preetwinder Singh Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioner. **** JUDGMENT HARBANS LAL, J. This petition has been moved by Kamaljit Singh under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in case FIR No.93 dated 13.2.2000 registered under Sections 420, 406, 468, 471 IPC at Police Station Civil Lines Patiala, District Patiala. The facts in brief are that the inquiry was conducted. Subhava Singh and Badhawa Singh sons of Anokh Singh are residents of village Khuda, P.S. Sadar, Patiala. Subhava Singh had gone to Israel after getting the passport issued in the year of 1993. After four years, he came back to his village. In May, 1999 Subhava Singh and Badhawa Singh both brothers went to Agent Kamaljit Singh son of Mohinder Singh resident of H.No.28, Anand Nagar-A, Tripuri Town, Patiala with their passports. He kept their passports with him by assuring that they will be sent abroad but asked them to bring Rs.3,44,000/- as expenses. This amount was given to the Agent Kamaljit Singh at his residence after selling 1 acre land before Ashish Criminal Misc. No. M-6265 of 2009 (O&M) -2- Kapoor and Anil Kapoor. Agent Kamaljit Singh had also obtained their signatures on blank papers, apart from their photographs. Subhava Singh, after having been made to stay at the hotels of Delhi and after taking round at the Airport was brought back. When Subhava Singh and Badhawa Singh demanded back their passports and cash amount, the petitioner did not return, ultimately, the case was registered under the aforesaid Sections. After registration of the case, the petitioner was granted bail by the Court. The challan was put in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala. He was charge-sheeted under Sections 420, 406, 471 of IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the year 2005, the petitioner had some urgent work relating to his business and he had asked his counsel to move an application for seeking permission to go abroad, but his counsel stated that there was no need for seeking such permission and, consequently, he went abroad. Eventually, he was declared a proclaimed offender. It is further argued that order dated 5.9.2008 vide which he has been declared a proclaimed offender is illegal and against law. I have considered these submissions. By no stretch of imagination, it could be expected of the counsel of the petitioner to advise the petitioner to go abroad without seeking permission of the Court when he was facing the trial. The petitioner himself too could have sensed that without seeking leave of the Court, he could not go abroad. Thus, to me it appears that story put forth by the petitioner is a coined version. The provisions of Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read as under:- “465. Finding or sentence when reversible by reason of error, omission or irregularity.- (1) Subject to the provisions hereinbefore contained, no Criminal Misc. No. M-6265 of 2009 (O&M) -3- finding, sentence or order passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction shall be reversed or altered by a Court of appeal, confirmation or revision on account of any error, omission or irregularity in the complaint, summons, warrant, proclamation, order, judgment or other proceedings before or during trial or in any inquiry or other proceedings under this Code, or any error, or irregularity in any sanction for the prosecution, unless in the opinion of that Court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby. (2) In determining whether any error, omission or irregularity in any proceeding under this Code, or any error, or irregularity in any sanction for the prosecution has occasioned a failure of justice, the Court shall have regard to the fact whether the objection could and should have been raised at an earlier stage in the proceedings.” There is nothing on the record to show that failure of justice has been caused to the petitioner in any manner while issuing proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. In order to curb the tendency on the part of criminals not to attend the Court in response to proclamation published under Section-Section (1) or further proclamation issued under Sub-Section (4) of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure declaring the accused as “Proclaimed Offender”, a new Section 174-A of IPC is added. The proclaimed offenders in fact create obstruction in the proceedings of the trial. It would be going too far to bestow leniency upon such offenders by granting bail. Thus, prima-facie no case is made out for admitting bail to Criminal Misc. No. M-6265 of 2009 (O&M) -4- the petitioner. Sequelly, this petition is dismissed. March 05, 2009 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/No