Making it clear that the failure to arrest an accused in a cheating and a forgery case for 15 years had created “a dent in competence and efficacy of the law enforcement agencies”, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has called for year-wise details of persons declared proclaimed offenders (POs) during the period. The direction came as Justice Harpreet Singh Brar ruled that necessary directions were required to be issued to the police to take recourse to property attachment of the POs and Section 174-A of the IPC dealing with the offence of non-appearance of the accused in response to a proclamation.
Justice Brar also asked the Amritsar Commissioner of Police and Senior Superintendent of Police (Rural) to further indicate in their affidavit the number of persons arrested and produced before the jurisdictional courts after being declared PO.
Directions were also issued to specify the number of cases where proceedings under Section 83 of the CrPC were initiated at the state’s behest to attach the POs’ properties and the number of cases where the state initiated proceedings under Section 174-A. The affidavit would also specify whether a special cell had been constituted, or periodic exercises were undertaken, to apprehend the POs, Justice Brar directed.
Taking up a case where the accused was seeking the quashing of order declaring him a PO, Justice Brar asserted the conspicuous facts of the matter had pricked the court’s conscience.
The petitioner had not even made a feeble attempt to explain the delay in challenging the impugned order dated July 15, 2008. It was unfathomable how he was “allowed to remain scot free” even after the issuance of proclamation order.
“If any person is allowed to evade his presence during the trial in this fashion, it would not only suffocate the rights of the victim and society, but would also render the entire criminal justice administration ineffective,” Justice Brar observed.
Describing property attachment was as significant component of criminal justice administration, Justice Brar observed it allowed police to ensure the presence of the accused during the legal process. But surprisingly application under Section 83 was not filed for necessary directions for property attachment of accused absconding and concealing himself from the process of law for 15 years.
“The primary purpose of property attachment under Section 83 is to prevent the accused from absconding or evading the process of law. It is a critical tool to ensure the presence of the accused during trial and also relevant in cases where the accused has been found guilty and he has been ordered to pay a fine or compensation to the victim or the state,” Justice Brar observed.
Justice Harpreet Singh Brar asked the Amritsar Commissioner of Police and Senior Superintendent of Police (Rural) to further indicate in their affidavit the number of persons arrested and produced before the jurisdictional courts after being declared PO.
