Printing Orders On Same Sheet To Avoid Paper Waste Is Commendable: Punjab & Haryana High Court Applauds Trial Court Judge

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has appreciated the efforts of a Session Judge in avoiding needless waste of paper by ensuring that judicial orders passed in a case were printed on the same sheet, wherever possible.

Justice Neerja K. Kalson said, "Before parting with this order, this Court appreciates the fact that as is evident from the orders placed on record, every precaution has been taken by the officer to ensure the optimum utilization of papers. The orders have been printed on the same sheet wherever possible, which every court should do, thereby setting a commendable example in avoiding the needless waste of paper – a precious resource demands prudent consideration in judicial proceedings."

The Court was hearing a petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Special Court), Ludhiana, whereby the petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender in a case registered under Sections 363, 366-A IPC and Section 12 of the POCSO Act.

The FIR arose from a complaint lodged by the father of the prosecutrix, alleging that his daughter had been kidnapped and induced away. The petitioner contended that he was in a consensual relationship with the woman, who had voluntarily left her parental home due to objections raised by her family.

The petitioner was initially arrested and later granted bail. Subsequently, the prosecutrix's father arranged her marriage with the petitioner at a Gurudwara Sahib. Meanwhile, the case was committed to the Sessions Court and charges were framed.

The petitioner later approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR on the ground of marriage. Interim protection was granted, but the same was vacated in 2019 after the petitioner was reported to have gone abroad and no appearance was made on his behalf.

In 2024, it came to light that the petitioner had been declared a proclaimed offender by order dated 12 April 2021, leading to the present petition.

The petitioner submitted that he was unaware of the vacation of interim relief before leaving for the USA and could not remain in touch with his family due to compelling circumstances.

After examining the record, the Court found that the trial court failed to record any satisfaction that the petitioner had absconded or concealed himself to evade arrest — a sine qua non for issuance of proclamation.

"Perusal of the orders passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ludhiana reveals that no reasons to believe abscondance that the petitioner/accused had absconded or concealed himself to evade the execution of the warrants, which is the sine qua non under Section 84(1) of the BNS, 2023 have been recorded. Nor is there any proof of failure or non- execution of warrants of arrest, such as issuance of summons/warrants of arrest, a report from the executing agency," the Court said.

The Court added that the trial Court proceeded directly to issue proclamation without exhausting the mandatory pre- requisites, thereby, acting in undue haste to dispose of a old complaint. This procedural infirmity strikes at the root of fair trial, rendering the order unsustainable.

"It is well settled that the issuance of proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and declaration of a person as a proclaimed offender under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C. constitute a serious step, which curtails personal liberty of an individual and the procedure prescribed therein such as recording satisfaction of abscondance, affixing notice at the accused's residence and publication is mandatory and cannot be dispensed with in haste," it added.

Justice Kalson pointed that the perusal of the impugned order clearly indicates that the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person without following the drill of Section 82 of Cr.P.C. and the Court below issued proclamation without recording reasons of its belief that the petitioner has absconded or is concealing himself.

Observing that, "the petitioner in the present case has himself come forward and has undertaken to appear before the learned trial Court on each and every date of hearing," the Court allowed the plea.

It also directed to appear before the trial Court within a period of two weeks from today and apply for bail. In doing so, the trial Court was also directed to decide the bail application of the accused expeditiously in accordance with law.

Mr. Karan Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner.

Title: XXX v. XXX

ORDER