Crl. Misc. No. M-36988 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-36988 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : 07.12.2011 Likhma Ram …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another …Respondents ………. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. *** Alok Singh, J. (Oral) This is a petition challenging the order dated 06.06.2009, passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ropar, declaring the petitioner proclaimed offender under Section 82 Cr.P.C. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that respondent No.2 herein has filed one criminal complaint under Sections 323,324,341,506,149 IPC. Learned Magistrate vide order dated 25.01.2008 was pleased to summon the petitioners to face trial for offences punishable under Sections 323,341,506,149 IPC. Petitioners were declared proclaimed offenders vide order dated 06.06.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to sub-section 4 of Section 82 of Cr.P.C. has vehemently argued that for the offences punishable under Sections 323,341,506 IPC they cannot be declared proclaimed offenders in view of sub-section 4 of Section 82 Cr.P.C. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Satinder Singh Vs. State of U.T. Chandigarh and another, Crl. Misc. No. M-36988 of 2011 (O&M) 2 reported in 2011(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 89. Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, has fairly stated that petitioner shall appear/surrender before the trial court on 16.01.2012. Notice of motion. On being asked, Mr. Raghubir Chaudhary, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, has accepted notice on behalf of State. I do not feel to issue notice to respondent No.2-private complainant at this stage, since matter involves pure question of law. Learned Single Judge of this Court in the matter of Satinder Singh (supra) has held that Magistrate could not declare accused as proclaimed offender as he was not accused of any of offences specified under sub-section 4 of Section 82 Cr.P.C. In the present case also petitioner is not accused of any offences specified under sub-section 4 of Section 82 Cr.P.C., therefore, order impugned is bad in law. Order impugned stands set aside. However, as indicated by learned counsel for the petitioner, petitioner shall remain present before the trial court on 16.01.2012. If petitioner appears/surrenders before the learned Magistrate on 16.01.2012, he shall be released on bail on furnishing personal bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. Thereafter, learned Magistrate shall proceed with the trial in accordance with law. Petition stands disposed of. ( Alok Singh ) December 7, 2011 Judge Anand