The question that arises in this revision petition is whether on the prayer of an investigating Police Officer during investi­gation of a cognizable case requesting the Magistrate to issue warrant of arrest, proclamation and attachment against an accused person, the Magistrate can issue those processes simultaneously at the same time. 2. Petitioner Gopal Deb was being wanted for arrest by the investigating Police Officer in connection with a case under Section 302 I.P.C. being Sidhai P. S. Case No. 2(2) of 1980, One Bharat Savar was seriously injured and ultimately brought to the G.B. Hospital, Agartala on 9.2.80 and the said injured person died on the same date. The case was registered at the Sidhai Police Station under Section 326, I.P.C. and was later changed to Section 302, I.P.C. when the injured person succumbed to the injuries. On 15.2.80 the Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura received a report from the Investigating Officer praying for issue of warrants of arrest, proclamation and attachment. In the same report the I.O. also prayed for police remand of accused Gopal Deb for 3 days when he would surrender. The learned Magistrate declined to order for police remand on the ground that the accused did not yet surrender. He, however, ordered for issue of those processes against the accused fixing 5.3.80 for service return of the processes. Thereafter some heads or cattle were attached allegedly belonging to the accused person. 3. Now as said before the principal question is whether such processes can be issued simultaneously on the prayer of the I.O. Learned counsel Mr. Majumder on behalf of the petitioner referred to the provisions or Sections 82 and 83, Cr. P.C. and submitted that the order of issuing those processes simul­taneously suffers from illegality. Sub-section (1) of Section 82 is extracted as under:- "82. Majumder on behalf of the petitioner referred to the provisions or Sections 82 and 83, Cr. P.C. and submitted that the order of issuing those processes simul­taneously suffers from illegality. Sub-section (1) of Section 82 is extracted as under:- "82. Proclamation for person absconding.-(1) If any Court has reason to believe (whether after taking evidence or not) 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 such proclamation." There is no ambiguity in the language of the provisions that the conditions precedent to issuing the process of procla­mation are (1) the Court ordering for such proclamation must have issued a warrant against the person and (2) the learned Magistrate must be satisfied on materials before him that the person has absconded or is concealing himself so that such warrant cannot be executed. There is no doubt about procedure that the war­rant of arrest must have been issued against the accused person before issuing the other processes. In this case there is no material to show that the learned Magistrate had issued the warrant of arrest against the accused. Eeven after issue of the warrant of arrest the Magistrate is not to take recourse to proclamation and/or attachment in a routine manner without applying his mind to the fact of ascendance of accused. The processes of attach­ment and proclamation are to be taken recourse to whenever a warrant fails of its effect. Before issuing a proclamation the officer serving the warrant of arrest need be examined as to the measures adopted by him to execute the warrant of arrest. If the Magistrate is satisfied on such evidence or in any other manner that the accused is absconding or concealing himself, only then the processes of proclamation and attachment could be issued. The previous issue of a warrant of arrest against the accused person is a necessary condition. So in the case where no warrant of arrest was issued by the Magistrate the order of proclamation and attachment is illegil ab initio. In case of a non-execution of a warrant of arrest the two remedies, namely proclamation under Section 82, Cr. The previous issue of a warrant of arrest against the accused person is a necessary condition. So in the case where no warrant of arrest was issued by the Magistrate the order of proclamation and attachment is illegil ab initio. In case of a non-execution of a warrant of arrest the two remedies, namely proclamation under Section 82, Cr. P. C. and attachment and sale of the property of the accused under Section 83, Cr.P.C. are provided. But the simultaneous issue of bath the processes namely warrant of arrest and proclamation is self-contradictory because it is only after the issue of warrant of arrest and after the issue of warrant of arrest and after satisfaction of the learned Magistrate that the accused absconded or is concealing himself, that the question of taking the next step namely proclamation comes into the picture. 4. As regards absconding or concealing himself by the accused the Magistrate must be satisfied that the accused person is absconding or concealing himself to avoid the service of the warrant. The mere fact that the serving officer could not find the accused person and, therefore, could not execute the warrant is not enough. Learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. Deb candidly con­cedes to this lacuna of the matter. In Pawan Kumar Gupta vs. The State of West Bengal, 1978 Cr. L. J, 1308 it was found that the simultaneous issue of a warrant of arrest and a proclamation is illegal and improper vitiating the consequential order of attach­ment and the ancillary orders passed. This view is quite reaso­nable and acceptable. 5. Section 83, Cr.P.C. deals with attachment of property of person absconding. Sub-section (1) of Section 83 reads as below :- "83. This view is quite reaso­nable and acceptable. 5. Section 83, Cr.P.C. deals with attachment of property of person absconding. Sub-section (1) of Section 83 reads as below :- "83. Attachment of property of person absconding.- (1) The Court issuing a proclamation under Section 82 may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, at any time after the issue of the proclamation, order the attachment of any property, movable or immovable or both, belonging to the proclaimed person : Provided that where at the time of the issue of the proclamation the Court is satisfied, by affidavit or other­wise, that the person in relation to whom the proclama­tion is to be issued,- (a) is about to dispose of the whole or any part of his property, or (b) is about to remove the whole or any part of his property from the local jurisdiction of the Court, it may order the attachment simultaneously with the issue of the proclamation." Section 83, therefore, authorises the Magistrate to issue an order of attachment at any time after issue of the proclama­tion. That means that the Magistrate need not wait for the elapse of 30 days as provided under section 82 Cr.P.C. before issuing attachment. The words "at any time" gives the Magi­strate a free hand no doubt but this does not mean that he can issue the 2 processes simultaneously. He can issue the attach­ment process after issuing the proclamation at any time "for reasons to be recorded in writing". So a bare order of issue of attachment process bereft of any reasons is not legal if the Magistrate decides to issue the attachment process before lapse of the 30 days provided under Section 82, Cr.P.C. But the proviso to Sub-Section (1) of Section 83 authorises the Magi­strate to issue both the processes simultaneously under some specified conditions as quoted above. 6. It is, therefore, clear that the conditions precedent to the simultaneous issue of the 2 processes are (1) where the Court is satisfied by affidavit or otherwise that the person in relation to whom the proclamation is to be issued is about to dispose of the whole or any of his property or (2) the person is about to remove the whole or any of his property from the local jurisdiction of the Court. Here in this case the learned Magi­strate acted as an automation on mere asking of the police to do so without any regard to the statutory provisions in this behalf. He has given no reason whatsoever for issuing all the processes simultaneously. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussion it is, therefore, found that the impugned order of simultaneous issue of warrant of arrest, proclamation and attachment has been quite out of juris­diction and illegal. The petition is, therefore, allowed and the impugned order is set aside. If any attachment has been made with regard to any property of the accused-petitioner the same is hereby released.