NDPS Absconders Cannot Be Declared “Proclaimed Offenders” Under Section 82(4) CrPC: They Remain “Proclaimed Persons”, Though Cognizance Under Section 174A IPC Still Lies

1. Introduction

In AVINASH SINGH v. STATE NCT OF DELHI (2026 DHC 35, decided on 05-01-2026), the Delhi High Court (Neena Bansal Krishna, J.) considered a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) seeking quashing of:

  • the trial court order dated 07.03.2022 declaring the petitioner a Proclaimed Offender, and
  • the order dated 11.09.2024 taking cognizance for the offence under Section 174A IPC.

The underlying prosecution arose from FIR No. 345/2019 (registered 03.12.2019) under Sections 20/25/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985, relating to alleged recovery of 280 kg ganja from a truck. The petitioner’s attributed role was that of the owner of the truck.

After arrest (05.12.2019), the petitioner was released on interim bail (04.11.2020) in the backdrop of COVID-19 directions issued in Court on its Motion v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (W.P.(C) 2/2020). He thereafter failed to appear; non-bailable warrants and proclamation proceedings followed, culminating in the “Proclaimed Offender” declaration. The petitioner was apprehended later (03.04.2024).

The case presented two core issues: (i) whether an NDPS accused can be declared a “Proclaimed Offender” under Section 82(4) CrPC; and (ii) whether the proclamation process suffered from procedural invalidity because it was not executed at the petitioner’s allegedly “current” address.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The High Court delivered a split outcome:

  • It held that NDPS offences do not fall within Section 82(4) CrPC; therefore, the petitioner could not have been declared a “Proclaimed Offender”. The impugned order dated 07.03.2022 was modified to treat him as a “Proclaimed Person”.
  • It rejected the plea that the proclamation was procedurally defective, holding that it was executed at the last known address and that the petitioner had not notified any change of address to the court.
  • It upheld the order dated 11.09.2024 taking cognizance under Section 174A IPC, observing there was no infirmity warranting interference and clarifying that the court’s observations would not prejudice the merits of the Section 174A trial.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

(a) Sanjay Bhandari v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), Crl. Rev. P. No. 223/2018 (decided on 31.07.2018)

This decision was the judgment’s principal anchor. The High Court reiterated its earlier understanding that:

  • Section 82(4) CrPC is the only source for declaring a person a “Proclaimed Offender”, and it is confined to the enumerated offences specified therein.
  • For offences outside Section 82(4), the proclamation mechanism under Section 82 may still apply, but the person is a “Proclaimed Person”, not a “Proclaimed Offender”.

In the present case, the NDPS Act offences (Sections 20/25/29) were not within Section 82(4) CrPC; hence the trial court’s label “Proclaimed Offender” was legally unsustainable. Importantly, the High Court treated the defect as one of classification and chose modification rather than wholesale quashing of proclamation proceedings.

(b) Rishabh Sethi v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., Petition No. 5767/2017 (Rajasthan High Court)

Though not elaborately discussed, this case was cited for the same doctrinal line: the “Proclaimed Offender” declaration is a statutory consequence restricted to Section 82(4) offences. Its citation supported the view that courts should not extend the label to non-enumerated offences by implication.

(c) Arun Kumar Parihar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), MANU/DE/0590/2021 (decided on 26.03.2021)

This authority was relied upon by the petitioner to reinforce the legal distinction between a “Proclaimed Person” and “Proclaimed Offender” and the consequences that flow from each. The present judgment’s reasoning aligns with that distinction, though it ultimately denies relief on the alleged procedural defects in execution.

(d) Court on its Motion v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (W.P.(C) 2/2020, order dated 25.03.2020)

This was not a precedent on proclamation law, but it formed part of the factual background: the petitioner’s interim bail was linked to the COVID-19 decongestion/medical-humanitarian framework. The later absence and proclamation proceedings were assessed against that backdrop, but the court found the petitioner’s failure to appear remained unexplained in law.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

A. The statutory boundary of “Proclaimed Offender” under Section 82(4) CrPC

The judgment draws a clean statutory line:

  • Section 82(1)-(3) CrPC provides the general proclamation machinery (issuance, publication, proof of execution).
  • Section 82(4) CrPC is an enhanced declaration provision: only when the prosecution concerns the specific offences listed can the court “pronounce him as a proclaimed offender”.

Since NDPS offences are not within Section 82(4), the High Court held the trial court’s proclamation order was “erroneous to the extent” it named the petitioner a Proclaimed Offender. The court accordingly modified the order: the petitioner “be considered as a Proclaimed Person”.

B. Harmonious construction with Section 174A IPC

The court’s reasoning is notably structured around the internal logic of Section 174A IPC, which prescribes two punishment tiers:

Failure to appear pursuant to a proclamation under Section 82(1) CrPC: punishment up to three years. Where a declaration under Section 82(4) CrPC pronouncing the person as a proclaimed offender is made: punishment up to seven years plus fine.

This dual-tier scheme was used to show that treating every proclaimed person as a “proclaimed offender” would collapse the statutory distinction and distort sentencing architecture. The court accepted the petitioner’s submission that such an approach would undermine the meaningful operation of Section 174A’s graded punishments.

However, the court simultaneously held that cognizance under Section 174A IPC remains maintainable even when the accused is only a “Proclaimed Person” (i.e., it is the three-year tier that applies absent a valid Section 82(4) declaration). This is the critical practical outcome: mislabelling under Section 82(4) may be cured by reclassification, but it does not automatically vitiate the Section 174A prosecution.

C. Procedural compliance: proclamation at the “last known address”

On the procedural challenge, the court stressed strict compliance because proclamation entails adverse consequences. Yet on facts, it found compliance:

  • The petitioner admitted shifting to his wife’s premises after release on bail, but gave no intimation of change of address to the court or authorities.
  • The process server executed at the recorded address; it was locked; and a neighbour’s statement indicated the family had shifted to an unknown place.
  • The petitioner’s brother/surety appeared and claimed ignorance of whereabouts; the court found this difficult to accept and treated it as reinforcing the inference that the petitioner’s whereabouts were not being transparently disclosed.

Therefore, the proclamation was held “validly issued” at the last known address, and the court declined to set aside the 11.09.2024 cognizance order.

3.3 Impact

  • Doctrinal clarity and correction mechanism: The judgment reinforces that courts must not confer “Proclaimed Offender” status outside Section 82(4) offences; where they do, higher courts may modify the order instead of nullifying the entire proclamation process.
  • Section 174A IPC prosecutions remain viable: Even if an accused cannot be a “proclaimed offender”, a valid Section 82(1) proclamation still sustains Section 174A IPC (with the lower punishment tier). This limits accused strategies that seek to defeat Section 174A by attacking only the “offender” label.
  • Address-change discipline in bail jurisprudence: The ruling signals that an accused released on bail must proactively inform the court of any address change; otherwise, proclamation at the last recorded address will ordinarily be treated as lawful.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

(a) “Proclaimed Person” vs “Proclaimed Offender”

  • Proclaimed Person: A person against whom a proclamation under Section 82(1) CrPC is published because he is absconding/concealing. This category applies broadly.
  • Proclaimed Offender: A narrower, aggravated status that can be declared only when the case involves offences specifically listed in Section 82(4) CrPC. It carries heavier statutory consequences and triggers the higher punishment bracket under Section 174A IPC.

(b) Why the label matters under Section 174A IPC

Section 174A IPC creates graded punishment: mere non-appearance after proclamation (up to 3 years) versus non-appearance coupled with a valid Section 82(4) “proclaimed offender” declaration (up to 7 years). The judgment preserves that gradation by refusing to expand Section 82(4) beyond its text.

(c) “Last known address” in proclamation execution

Proclamation cannot be defeated by an unnotified move. If the accused does not inform the court of a new address, execution at the address on record is ordinarily treated as legally sufficient.

5. Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s key contribution is a reinforced rule of statutory discipline: for NDPS Act prosecutions, an absconding accused may be proceeded against under Section 82 CrPC as a “Proclaimed Person”, but cannot be branded a “Proclaimed Offender” under Section 82(4). At the same time, the court makes clear that Section 174A IPC proceedings can continue on the basis of a valid proclamation, even if the “proclaimed offender” label is unavailable.

In practical terms, the judgment both (i) corrects overbroad proclamation nomenclature that can affect penal consequences, and (ii) protects the efficacy of Section 174A IPC as an enforcement tool to secure appearance, particularly where the accused fails to keep the court informed of his whereabouts.