Recently, the Delhi High Court examined the legality of declaring an accused a proclaimed offender in a narcotics case, raising important questions on the distinction between a “proclaimed person” and a “proclaimed offender” under criminal procedure law. The case arose from proceedings initiated against a truck owner accused in an NDPS matter, who was later booked for non-appearance before the trial court.
The case stemmed from an FIR registered in December 2019 under Sections 20, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act, following the alleged recovery of a large quantity of ganja from a truck in Delhi. The petitioner was arrested as the owner of the vehicle and was later released on interim bail during the COVID-19 period.
Subsequently, when the petitioner failed to appear before the trial court, non-bailable warrants were issued, and proceedings under Section 82 CrPC were initiated. In March 2022, the trial court declared him a proclaimed offender and later took cognizance of an offence under Section 174A IPC for non-appearance.
The petitioner contended that offences under the NDPS Act do not fall within the limited category of offences mentioned under Section 82(4) CrPC, for which a person can be declared a proclaimed offender. The counsel argued that, at best, he could only have been declared a proclaimed person. The counsel further submitted that he had shifted residence due to family circumstances and was unaware of the court proceedings, alleging improper execution of the proclamation.
The State, on the other hand, maintained that due process had been followed and that the petitioner had deliberately avoided court proceedings.
The Court noted that criminal law makes a clear distinction between a proclaimed person and a proclaimed offender, with stricter consequences attached only to the latter in cases involving offences specifically listed under Section 82(4) CrPC.
Referring to earlier precedents, the Court observed that NDPS offences do not fall within this statutory category. It also held that while the proclamation proceedings were carried out at the petitioner’s last known address in accordance with law, the trial court had erred in declaring him a proclaimed offender instead of a proclaimed person.
Modifying the trial court’s order, the High Court held that the Petitioner could only be treated as a proclaimed person and not a proclaimed offender. However, it declined to quash the proceedings under Section 174A IPC, holding that there was no infirmity in the cognizance taken for non-appearance. The petition was accordingly disposed of, with the Court clarifying that its observations would not affect the merits of the trial
Case Title: Avinash Singh v. State
Case No.: CRL.M.C. 3505/2025
Coram: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Counsel for the Petitioner: Adv. Naveen Panwar
Counsel for the State: APP Utkarsh
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
