Offender’, since no other provision except Sub-section (4) of Section 82 Cr.P.C. provides for declaring a person as ‘proclaimed offender’. It was further held that declaring the petitioner therein as PO, would not affect the status of the petitioner as a ‘proclaimed person’ and would be without prejudice to the action initiated against the petitioner for failure to appear in terms of the proclamation issued. The aforesaid judgment has also been followed in Manoj Tandon v. State (supra) wherein the proclamation directing the petitioner as proclaimed offender under Sections 186/332/352/353/34 IPC was set aside. Further, Sanjay Bhandari v. State (supra) duly distinguishes the judgement passed in Smt. Deeksha Puri v. State of Haryana , 2013 (1) RCR, (Crl.) 159(2), which has been relied upon by learned APP for the State. In view of aforesaid settled position of law, a person can be directed to be declared as a proclaimed offender under Subsection (4) of Section 82 Cr.PC only if he is accused of offence punishable under section 302, 304, 364, 367, 382, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 402, 436, 449, 459 or 460 IPC. 10. The prosecution in the instant case has only invoked offences under Section 420/120B/34 IPC, which have not been specified under Sub-section (4) of Section 82 Cr.P.C. In view of above, order dated 08.06.2023 passed by learned MM to the extent it declares the petitioner as PO is liable to be set aside. However, this would not affect the status of the petitioner as a ‘proclaimed person’ and would be without prejudice to any action which may be initiated against the petitioner for failure to appear in terms of the proclamation issued.
