In Brief
A contractor was declared a proclaimed offender in 2016 for non-appearance in a cheque-bouncing case from 2010, and later charged under Section 174A IPC for failing to respond to the proclamation. The Supreme Court held that while Section 174A IPC is an independent offence separate from the proclamation itself, when the original offence results in acquittal, the proclaimed offender status cannot subsist. The Court allowed the appeal, quashing the High Court's judgment and closing all proceedings, including the Section 174A charge, as the purpose of securing the accused's presence was no longer necessary post-acquittal.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.