Disposing of a criminal matter, the court set aside an order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender, holding that under Section 82(4) CrPC he can only be declared a proclaimed person, relying on Rahul Datta case. Disposition: allowed.
The impugned order be set aside.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM NO. M-24605 OF 2012(O&M) DECIDED ON : 22.11.2012
Gopal Jassal
...Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab and another
...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. C. PURI
Present : None for the petitioner.
Mr. Sandeep Chhabra, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Amit Dhawan, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
K. C. PURI. J. (ORAL)
The petitioner is stated to have appeared before the trial Court in compliance to the order dated 23.08.2012 passed by this Court. The petitioner cannot be declared a proclaimed offender, in view of Section 82 (4) of the Cr.P.C. At the most, he can be declared as a proclaimed person.
So, in view of authority, “Rahul Datta vs. State of
Haryana” 2012 (2) RCR (Criminal) 585, the impugned order
stands set-aside.
Disposed of.
(K. C. PURI) JUDGE
NOVEMBER 22, 2012 shalini
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rahul Datta vs. State of HaryanaApplied¶14
Rahul Datta vs. State of Haryana 2012 (2) RCR (Criminal) 585
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Gopal Jassal
State of Punjab
another
K. C. PURI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
