Court Emphasizes Strict Judicial Scrutiny Before Issuing Proclamation Under Section 82 CrPC and Recording Evidence in Absence of Accused Under Section 299; Issues Guidelines to Prevent Misuse
In a significant judgment dated October 5, 2026, the Gujarat High Court set aside the order of the Special Court at Veraval that had declared Sandeepkumar Radhakrushnalal Shrivastav, an accused in a Gujarat Protection of Interest of Depositors (GPID) Act case, as a proclaimed offender under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and directed recording of evidence in his absence under Section 299 CrPC. The High Court found the order to be based on a forged police report and reiterated the necessity of judicial satisfaction before issuing proclamations against absconding accused.
The petitioner was facing charges under Sections 406, 409, 420, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the GPID Act relating to financial misconduct. While the petitioner had regularly appeared before the trial court at Rajkot, after the case was transferred to Veraval, notices and warrants remained unserved. The trial court subsequently issued a non-bailable warrant and a proclamation under Section 82 CrPC, concluding the accused was evading arrest. Based on the police report, it also directed evidence to be recorded in the accused's absence under Section 299 CrPC.
However, the High Court found serious discrepancies in the police report relied upon by the trial court. A key witness statement submitted by the police was found to be fictitious, with no such person residing at the stated address. The police officer who submitted the report was suspended for fabricating evidence. The Court held that such a forged report could not justify declaring the accused absconding and recording evidence without his presence.
Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal (2007), the High Court emphasized that non-bailable warrants and proclamations interfere with personal liberty and must be issued only after careful judicial scrutiny. It stressed that before a proclamation is issued under Section 82 CrPC, the Court must be satisfied on reliable material that the accused, despite knowledge of proceedings, is deliberately concealing himself to avoid arrest. Mere non-service of notice or inability of police to find the accused is insufficient to conclude absconding.
The Court quashed the impugned order and directed the petitioner to appear before the trial court for recording evidence in his presence. It also directed the trial court to initiate criminal prosecution against the police officer responsible for submitting the false report, in addition to departmental action.
Furthermore, the Gujarat High Court laid down detailed guidelines for courts and police regarding proclamation proceedings under Section 82 CrPC. These include:
- Police must file a detailed report stating deliberate concealment of the accused with reasons for inability to secure presence.
- Affidavits must disclose the accused's address, contact details, and reasons for non-service.
- Photographic evidence of warrants affixed at the accused's residence must be annexed.
- Verification by at least two respectable local persons with identity proofs must be recorded in the case diary.
The Court ordered circulation of the judgment and guidelines to all district courts in Gujarat to ensure proper implementation and prevent misuse of proclamation provisions. The judgment sends a strong message against fabrication of evidence by police and protects the personal liberty of accused persons by mandating strict judicial oversight before issuing proclamations and recording evidence in absence.
Bottom Line:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Sections 82 and 299 Proclamation and recording of evidence in absence of accused - Before issuing proclamation under Section 82, Court must be satisfied on basis of reliable material that accused had knowledge of proceedings and had absconded or was deliberately concealing himself to avoid execution of warrant - Mere non-service of notice/warrant or non-availability at address is insufficient - Order declaring accused absconding and directing recording of evidence under Section 299, based on forged police report, quashed - High Court also directed criminal prosecution against police officer and issued guidelines to Courts for dealing with proclamation proceedings.
Statutory provision(s):
Sections 82, 299, 73, 406, 409, 420, 120B of Indian Penal Code; Section 3 of Gujarat Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 2003; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sections 82, 299
Sandeepkumar Radhakrushnalal Shrivastav v. State of Gujarat, (Gujarat) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2996406
