The Delhi High Court has quashed the order declaring Priya Ranjan Sinha as a proclaimed offender in a case involving the alleged promotion of cryptocurrency “Kashhcoin.” The court, in its ruling, observed that the due process outlined in Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) was not adequately followed.
Background of the Case:
Priya Ranjan Sinha, the petitioner in the case, was one of the organizers involved in promoting “Kashhcoin,” a cryptocurrency launched in 2016. The currency experienced a significant drop in value due to decreasing demand, leading several investors, including the complainant, to file FIR No. 133/2017 at the Crime Branch, Delhi. Allegations were made against Sinha for inducing investors and collecting substantial sums of money, along with issuing cheques that eventually bounced.
Despite his initial cooperation in the investigation in September and October 2017, the petitioner was later declared a proclaimed offender by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM), Delhi, on October 10, 2018. Sinha challenged this order, contending that he had already cooperated with the investigation multiple times and that there was no legal basis for the proclamation.
Legal Issues Involved:
The primary legal issue revolved around whether the proclamation of Sinha as an offender under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was valid. Section 82 mandates specific procedures, including issuing a written proclamation requiring the accused to appear at a particular place and time, and ensuring that this proclamation is publicly read and affixed at conspicuous locations. The petitioner argued that the issuance of non-bailable warrants (NBWs) and the subsequent proclamation did not meet the procedural requirements.
The petitioner relied on several legal precedents, including Nirujogi Appala Naidu vs. Smt. Nirujogi Roja and Mohd. Nazrul Islam vs. State of Assam, to assert that the issuance of warrants is a pre-condition for an action under Section 82 Cr.P.C.
Court’s Decision:
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna presided over the case, with Mr. Chayan Sarkar and Mr. Shailendra Kumar representing the petitioner, while Ms. Richa Dhawan appeared for the State. The court noted several procedural lapses in the issuance and execution of the proclamation.
Justice Krishna observed, “There is no report filed by the State to corroborate that the Non-Bailable Warrants (NBWs) had been issued at both addresses of the petitioner and that they were returned unexecuted. The bald assertions of the Investigating Officer (IO) that the warrants were returned unserved cannot be believed.”
The court further highlighted the failure to comply with the requirements of Section 82(2) Cr.P.C., stating, “No document or report has been filed to show that the pasting of the Proclamation had been done at the two residential addresses of the petitioner or in the Court premises or in the village or town where the petitioner ordinarily resides.”
The court emphasized that there was a lack of effort to serve the proclamation at the petitioner’s permanent residence in Chapra, Bihar, noting, “Such publications, therefore, cannot be considered to be in accordance with law.”
Given these findings, the court concluded that “there was no complete satisfaction that the petitioner was absconding or concealing himself,” and quashed the proclamation order.
