In a significant ruling highlighting the paramount importance of due process, a district court in Chandigarh has acquitted a Mohali resident in a case where he was declared a proclaimed offender. The court found critical legal flaws in the prosecution's approach, leading to the discharge of the accused.
Court Cites Fundamental Legal Defects
The order was passed by the Court of Kuldeep Singh, JMIC (Judicial Magistrate First Class), on December 24, 2025. The case pertained to an FIR dated January 18, 2020, registered at the Police Station in Sector 36, Chandigarh, against Vikas Walia under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
This section deals with non-appearance in response to a proclamation. The prosecution's case stemmed from a previous complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act, where Walia was declared a proclaimed person. Acting on a magistrate's order, the police subsequently registered the FIR alleging his failure to appear in court despite due process.
Non-Compliance with Section 195 CrPC Proves Fatal for Prosecution
The core of the court's decision rested on the prosecution's failure to adhere to Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The court emphasized that this section creates a mandatory legal condition. It stipulates that cognizance of an offence under Section 174-A IPC can only be taken on a written complaint by the concerned public servant—in this instance, the court before which the accused failed to appear.
The court observed a serious procedural shortcut. Instead of the concerned court filing a proper complaint, the process involved typing a complaint through the investigating officer and merely getting it signed by a magistrate. The court held this method to be legally impermissible, creating an embargo on the entire prosecution.
In its reasoning, the court relied on established precedents from the Punjab and Haryana High Court, including judgments in Ajay Kumar vs State of Haryana and Pardeep Kumar vs State of Punjab, which clearly underline the necessity of strict compliance with Section 195 CrPC.
Failure to Prove Service of Notices
Beyond the fundamental defect under Section 195 CrPC, the prosecution also failed to discharge its burden of proof regarding the service of notices. The court noted that the prosecution could not establish that summons, bailable warrants, non-bailable warrants, and the proclamation were duly served and published as required by law.
During the trial, the prosecution examined three witnesses, including the investigating officer, and presented documentary evidence. However, Walia contested the allegations, claiming he was never properly served with any court summons or proclamation notices—a claim the prosecution could not effectively counter with legal proof.
Acquittal and Immediate Consequences
In view of these inherent defects in the prosecution case and the lack of compliance with mandatory legal provisions, the court had no option but to acquit Vikas Walia of all charges. The court ordered his bail bonds to be discharged.
The order further stated that Walia would be released from custody immediately, provided he is not required in connection with any other case. This ruling serves as a stark reminder to investigative and prosecuting agencies of the critical need to meticulously follow prescribed legal procedures, where any significant lapse can vitiate the entire case.
