Order.- This petition is filed by one: M.S.R. Gundappa, father of Dr. M.G. Nagaraj, who is abroad. 2. The facts as set out in the petition, are: The petitioner and his three sons are doing business in Drugs in Chikmagalur town under the name M/s. Fair Price Drug Stores. The petitioner is the Managing Partner. On account of his old age, he is assisted by his sons M/s. M.G. Krishna and M.S. Babusbankar. His another son, Dr. M G. Nagaraj, a Veterinary Doctor, left for the U.S.A. for further studies and appointment, on or about 21st June, 1973. Since then he has been permanently residing there. 3. Dr. Nagaraj, was arrayed as the 4th accused in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chikmagalur, in C.CNo. 611 of 1975. The charge-sheet was filed in the Magistrate’s Court on 6th May, 1975. On that day Dr. M.G. Nagaraj, was not in India and was in the U.S.A., settled down there and serving as a Doctor. The Magistrate ordered summons to the four accused persons, returnable by 24th June, 1975. The fact that Dr. Nagaraj, was in the U.S.A. was, unfortuately, not brought to the notice of the Magistrate. He, again, ordered summons to Dr. Nagaraj, returnable by 2?nd July, 1975. On that day, the Assistant Public Prosecutor requested the Court to bifurcate the case against Dr. M.G. Nagaraj and to register a separate case, and accordingly on 2nd August, 1975 the case against Dr. Nagaraj, was separated and registered as C.C.No. 1013 of 1975. On 2nd August, 1975 the Magistrate ordered non-bailable warrant to Dr. Nagaraj, and directed that it should be sent through the superintendent of police for execution, returnable by 30th August, 1975. According to the order sheet, the non-bailable warrant was not executed stating that Dr. Nagaraj, has been to America; The case was posted on various dates at the request of the Assistant Public Prosecutor. On 8th June, 1976 the Magistrate ordered issued of proclamation under section 82, Criminal Procedure Code 1973, returnable by 19th July, 976. The proclamation, is dated 14th June, 1976- The heading is — Proclamation for person absconding. 4. The proclamation is dated 14th June, 1976. It was published on 18th June, 1976. Dr. M.G. Nagaraj, was aksed to appear within 30 days from 14th June, 1976. The proclamation, is dated 14th June, 1976- The heading is — Proclamation for person absconding. 4. The proclamation is dated 14th June, 1976. It was published on 18th June, 1976. Dr. M.G. Nagaraj, was aksed to appear within 30 days from 14th June, 1976. This, as contended by Sri Kalasa Shamanna, learned Advocate, is clearly illegal as per the conditions prescribed by the Code. That Dr. M.G. Nagaraj,. was in the U.S.A. long prior to the issue of the summons and the proclamation is borne out by several documents, including the report of the Police Officer. He could not, therefore, be said to be absconding, and a proclamation was clearly unwarranted and illegal. Section 82 of the new Code (section 87 of the old Code) lays down that if any Court has reason, to believe that any person against whom a warrant has been issued by it has absconded or is concealing himself so that such warrant cannot be executed, such Court may publish a written proclamation requiring him to appear at a specified place and at a specified time not less than thirty days from the date of publishing it. No specific time is mentioned in the proclamation, and thirty days from the date of publishing it are not there. 5. Below the non-bailable warrant is a memo, which reads.- "The Sub-Inspector of Police, Town. Police Station, Chikmagalur is hereby directed to ascertain and submit whether the accused person in the above case has any movable or immovable property owned by him on or before 19th July, 1976 to which date the case stands posted. " In this context Sri Shamanna placed before me a decision of the Madras High Court in Vellayappa Chettiar v. Alagappa Chettiar1. What is laid down there is: "Before a proclamation under section. 87 or an attachment under section 88 can be issued, it must be shown that the accused is absconding or concealing: himself so that the warrant for his arrest cannot be executed. Where after the issue of the warrant the Magistrate is informed that the accused had already left India before the warrant was issued, the orders of attachment and proclamation are without jurisdiction Inasmuch as since the accused could not have known of the warrant which was issued after he had left India he cannot be said to be wilfully absconding knowing of the warrant. " Vide also Guruppa Gugal v. State of Mysore1 6. The petitioner’s son Dr. M.G. Nagaraj went for his sutdies and employment to the U.S.A. and has settled there. The dictionary meaning of the word ‘abscond’ is ‘go away secretly, fly from the law’. Dr.M.G. Nagaraj has neither gone away secretly nor flown from the law. 7. The prayer in the petition is that in view of the circumstances set out, the order passed by the Magistrate on 8th June, 1976 and the subsequent proceedings culminating in the order passed on 19th July, 1976 in C.C.No.1013 of 1975 be quashed. The prayer has perforce to be allowed. The order passed by the Magistrate on 8th June, 1976 and the subsequent proceedings culminating in the order passed on 19th July, 1976 in C.C.No.1013 of 1975 are quashed. 8. This petition is allowed.