The Punjab & Haryana High Court has appreciated the efforts of a Sessions Judge for avoiding needless waste of paper by printing judicial orders on the same sheet wherever possible.
Court’s Appreciation
Justice Neerja K. Kalson applauded the initiative, observing that:
“Every precaution has been taken by the officer to ensure optimum utilization of paper. Printing orders on the same sheet wherever possible sets a commendable example in avoiding needless waste of paper—a precious resource that demands prudent consideration in judicial proceedings.”
The Court emphasized that such practice should be followed by all courts.
Background of the Case
The Court was hearing a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, challenging an order of the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Special Court), Ludhiana, declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender.
The FIR was registered under:
-
Section 363 IPC
-
Section 366-A IPC
-
Section 12 of the POCSO Act
The complaint alleged kidnapping and inducement of the prosecutrix.
Petitioner’s Case
-
The petitioner claimed a consensual relationship
-
The woman allegedly left home voluntarily due to family opposition
-
The petitioner was initially arrested, then released on bail
-
Later, the prosecutrix’s father arranged her marriage with the petitioner at a Gurudwara Sahib
Subsequently:
-
Charges were framed
-
The petitioner sought quashing of FIR on the basis of marriage
-
Interim protection was granted but vacated in 2019 after the petitioner went abroad
-
In 2024, it was revealed that he had been declared a proclaimed offender (12 April 2021)
Key Legal Finding
The High Court found serious procedural lapses by the trial court.
The trial court failed to record satisfaction that the petitioner had absconded or concealed himself to evade arrest — a sine qua non for issuing proclamation.
Justice Kalson noted:
-
No proof of non-execution of warrants
-
No summons or warrant execution report
-
No recorded reasons for belief of abscondence
Strong Observation by the Court
Issuance of proclamation under Section 82 CrPC (now Section 84 BNS) is a serious step affecting personal liberty and cannot be done in haste without following mandatory procedure.
The trial court:
-
Proceeded directly to proclamation
-
Did not exhaust mandatory pre-requisites
-
Acted in undue haste, affecting fair trial
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition, holding that:
-
The proclamation order was unsustainable
-
The petitioner had voluntarily undertaken to appear before the trial court
Directions Issued
-
Petitioner to appear before trial court within two weeks
-
Apply for bail
-
Trial court to decide bail expeditiously in accordance with law
