The Supreme Court of India ruled that failing to appear in response to a proclamation under Section 82 of the CrPC is a stand-alone offence under Section 174A of the IPC. This offence remains valid even if the proclamation ceases to be in effect. The judgment came in an appeal challenging a decision by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. This clarification reinforces accountability in complying with legal proclamations.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court ruled that failure to appear in response to a proclamation constitutes a “stand-alone offence” that can persist even after the proclamation is revoked.
This decision made on January 2 in response to an appeal against a June 2023 ruling by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
The bench examined several legal issues, including whether an accused’s status as a proclaimed offender under the CrPC can remain if they are acquitted during the trial related to the same offence.
Justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol stated,
“In conclusion, we hold that Section 174A IPC is an independent, substantive offence that can continue even if the proclamation under Section 82 CrPC is extinguished. It is a stand-alone offence,”
Section 82 of the former Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) pertains to proclamations for individuals who are absconding, while Section 174A of the former Indian Penal Code (IPC) addresses non-appearance in response to such proclamations.
The bench explained,
“The purpose of Section 82 CrPC, as can be understood from a bare reading of the statutory text, is to ensure that a person called to appear before a court does so.”
They added that the objective of Section 174A IPC is to impose penal consequences for defying a court order that mandates a person’s presence.
The court examined the implications if an individual’s status under Section 82 CrPC is quashed, meaning they are no longer required to appear in court due to subsequent developments.
The court stated,
“Then, can the prosecution still proceed against such a person for not appearing before a court while the process was in effect? The answer is in the affirmative,”
The bench noted that the language of Section 174A IPC indicates that “the very instance at which a person is directed to appear and does not do so, this section comes into play.”
Read Also: Kerala HC Questions Requirement for ‘Parliamentary Laws’ to be Named in English
They concluded that while proceedings under Section 174A IPC cannot be initiated independently of Section 82 CrPC meaning they can only commence after a proclamation is issued such proceedings can continue even if the proclamation is no longer in effect.
If a court issues a proclamation under Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), it can lead to a separate offence under Section 174A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Under Section 82, if a person avoids court hearings or escapes arrest despite repeated summons or warrants, the court can declare them an absconder. If the person still fails to comply with the proclamation, it becomes a punishable offence under Section 174A.
The punishment for not appearing after the proclamation is imprisonment of up to 3 years and/or a fine. If the person is declared a proclaimed offender, the punishment increases to imprisonment of up to 7 years and/or a fine.