Inderjit Singh, J.
Jaswinder Singh-petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C against State of Punjab for quashing of the order dated 3.4.2007 (Annexure-P.2) passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Moga vide which the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed offender.
It is stated in the petition that the order dated 3.4.2007 be set aside in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Sudo Mandal alias Diwarak Mandal v. State of Punjab, 2011 (2) R.C.R (Cr.) 453. It is also stated that the Police conducted investigation and presented challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C against five persons, namely, Jaswant Singh alias Gurjant Singh, Kulwinder Singh alias Bhola Singh, Darshan Singh son of Buta Singh, Darshan Singh son of Karnail Singh and the present petitioner. All the accused were charge-sheeted and evidence was led by the prosecution. During the trial, the petitioner on account of some wrong advice given left the country to earn his livelihood and absented himself from the trial of the case before the trial Court and accordingly he was declared as proclaimed offender. The petitioner could not return due to unavoidable circumstances. During the trial all other accused were acquitted. The State went in the appeal before the Sessions Judge, who dismissed the appeal. It is also stated in the petition that the trial Court has not adopted the proper procedure for declaring him proclaimed offender.
At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner only argued on one point that as the other co-accused have been acquitted in the case, therefore, the order declaring him proclaimed offender be set aside. He placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Sudo Mandal alias Diwarak Mandal v. State of Punjab, 2011 (2) R.C.R (Cr.) 453. I have gone through the law laid down in this judgment, in which it is mainly held that as per prosecution version five accused committed the murder, three accused absconded and were declared proclaimed offenders, two accused were arrested and sent up for trial. Both were convicted by the trial Court, but were acquitted by the High Court. High Court found that eye-witnesses were implanted and were untrustworthy. Proceedings against the absconding P.Os were also quashed in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C It has been held that it would be empty formality to send them for trial on same unbelievable and untrustworthy evidence, which would ultimately lead to their acquittal. I have gone through this citation. This citation having distinguished facts will not apply in the present case. I have gone through the order dated 5.11.2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Moga. No where the Court has given the finding that the witnesses are untrustworthy or the witnesses have been implanted in the case in hand. Rather, benefit of doubt has been given by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moga by stating that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the accused without any reasonable doubt. Therefore, it is no where the finding that the case is totally false or the witnesses are not trustworthy. So, this citation will not apply in the present case.
Further more, the petitioner has not come to quash the FIR in this case. He has come only to quash the order declaring him as proclaimed offender. He has not pointed out any illegality at the time of arguments in the order as to how proper procedure has not been adopted.
Therefore, finding no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed.