NDPS Accused Can’t Be Declared Proclaimed Offender; Only Proclaimed Person Can Be Declared Under Section 82 CrPC: Delhi High Court
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna has held that an accused booked under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act cannot be declared a “Proclaimed Offender” under Section 82 CrPC, and may only be treated as a “Proclaimed Person” unless the case involves offences specifically covered by Section 82(4) CrPC. In the matter, the accused had approached the Court after a trial court proclamation in a narcotics case linked to the alleged recovery of 280 kg ganja from a truck stated to be connected to him. The Court modified the proclamation order to this limited extent but left undisturbed the trial court’s cognizance for non-appearance under Section 174A IPC.
The petition was filed by the accused seeking quashing of an order by which he was declared a proclaimed offender and a subsequent order taking cognizance of an offence relating to non-appearance pursuant to a proclamation. The prosecution case arose from a narcotics investigation in which a truck carrying a large quantity of contraband was intercepted, and the petitioner was alleged to be the owner of the vehicle involved. He was arrested and later released on interim bail on humanitarian grounds.
During trial proceedings, the petitioner failed to appear before the trial court. Non-bailable warrants were issued, followed by initiation of proclamation proceedings. On the basis of the process server’s report and a neighbour’s statement that the petitioner and his family had shifted to an unknown place, the trial court declared him a proclaimed offender. Subsequently, cognizance was taken for the offence of non-appearance pursuant to proclamation.
The petitioner contended that the declaration as a proclaimed offender was legally impermissible since the offences involved did not fall within the statutory category permitting such a declaration. He also alleged improper execution of proclamation proceedings due to non-verification of his changed address. The State opposed the petition, relying on compliance with the prescribed procedure and the petitioner’s failure to inform the court of any change of residence.
The Court examined the statutory scheme governing proclamation proceedings and noted the legal distinction between a proclaimed person and a proclaimed offender. It observed that “there is a distinction between a person being declared a proclaimed person for the offences under IPC and a person getting declared Proclaimed Offender for the offences specifically mentioned in Section 82(4) CrPC.”
While analysing the consequences flowing from a proclamation, the Court stated that “there are adverse consequences stipulated in CrPC and IPC qua a person in respect of whom proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C is published.” The Court referred to the legislative framework and recorded that the procedure for issuance of a proclamation is uniform, but the declaration as a proclaimed offender is confined only to offences expressly enumerated in the statute. It observed that “for all other offences, the person is declared as a Proclaimed Person.”
The Court further analysed the penal provision governing non-appearance and noted that “Section 174A IPC prescribes different sentence for a proclaimed person and a proclaimed offender.” It observed that the legislative intent was to secure the presence of an absconder, but with enhanced punishment only where a declaration under the specified statutory provision had been validly made.
On the factual challenge to the proclamation, the Court observed that “there must be strict compliance of the procedure prescribed under Section 82 Cr.P.C., while declaring a person as a Proclaimed Person or a Proclaimed Offender.” Examining the record, it stated that the proclamation had been executed at the petitioner’s last known address and that there was no intimation to the court regarding change of residence. The Court recorded that “the Proclamation has been executed at the last known address, in accordance with law.”
The Court directed that “the Impugned Order dated 07.03.2022 declaring the Petitioner as a Proclaimed Offender, is modified to the extent that he be declared as a Proclaimed Person.” It further clarified that “there is no infirmity in the Order dated 11.09.2024 vide which the cognizance has been taken against him for the offence under Section 174(A) IPC.”
“There is also no ground for quashing of the Order dated 07.03.2022 vide which the cognizance under Section 174(A) IPC, has been taken. The observations made herein, do not constitute an expression on the merits of the trial under Section 174(A) IPC.” The petition was disposed of accordingly, along with all pending applications.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Naveen Panwar, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Utkarsh, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
Case Title: Avinash Singh v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Neutral Citation: 2026: DHC:35
Case Number: CRL.M.C. 3505/2025
Bench: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
