Judgment : I. M. Quddusi, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicants and the learned Additional Government Advocate. 2. CRIMINAL Misc. Application No. 3670 of 1996 has been filed on behalf of Udaibhan and Suraj Bhan Karwaria while CRIMINAL Misc. Application No. 3760 of 1996 has been filed on behalf of Kapil Muni Karwaria. These applications have been filed against the order dated 16.8.1996 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad and 17. 8. 1996 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Allahabad. 3. THE learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has issued Proclamation under Section 82/83 Code of Criminal Procedure by one and the same order against Udai Bhan Karwaria and Suraj Bhan Kar waria and only under Section 82 Cr. P. C. against Kapil Muni Karwaria. 4. LEARNED Counsel for the applicants has contended that process under Section 82, Cr. P. C. and order of attachment of property under Section 83 Cr. P. C. cannot be ordered together by one and the same order, but the learned Magistrate vide his order dated 16th August, 1996 issued process under Section 82, Cr. P. C. and passed order under Section 83, Cr. P. C. together against the first two applicants, viz. Udai Bhan Kar waria and Suraj Bhan Karwaria and that the applicants cannot be termed as 'absconders. Brief facts of the case are that the applicants are involved in Case Crime No. 515 of 1996 under Section 147, 148, 149, 302, 307/34 I.P.C. and Section 7 of Criminal Laws Amendment Act, Police Station Civil Lines, Allahabad regarding an incident which had taken place on 13.8.1996. On 14.8.1996 an application was moved by the Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station Civil Lines, before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad to issue process against the applicants under Sections 82/83 Cr. P. C. A copy of that application and af fidavit has been filed as Annexure "1" to the affidavit filed in support of the present application. Non-bailable warrants were is sued on 14.8.1996 On the same day wife of Kapil Muni Karwaria, namely, Shrimati Kalpana Karwaria moved an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, refer ring the case law laid down by this Court in the matter of Devendra Singh Negi alias Debu v. State of U. P., 1993 U. P. Cr. R. 260 : 1993 JIC 434 (All) and prayed for not issuing order under Section 83, Cr. R. 260 : 1993 JIC 434 (All) and prayed for not issuing order under Section 83, Cr. P. C. On 16-8-1996 again the officer-in-charge of police station Civil Lines, submitted a report before the Chief Judicial Magistrate for issuing process against the applicants under Sections 82/83 Cr. P. C. He had also filed an affidavit along with the report, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure "3 to the affidavit filed in support of the application. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad passed an order issuing process against the first two applicants under Section 82/83, Cr. P. C. for proclammation and attachment of property. Considering the report submitted on the non-bailable warrant already issued, the same day. Against the said order the applicants preferred Criminal Revision No. 889 of 1996 before the Sessions Judge, Allahabad which was dismissed on 17-8-19%. There after the applicants have filed these petitions under Section 482, Cr. P. C. for interference by this Court. 5. THE two points involved in these petitions are whether the process under Section 82/83, Cr. P. C. can be ordered by one and the same order mentioning therein specifically that the process under Section 82 / 83, Cr. P. C. shall be issued against the first two applicants together, and whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the applicants could be termed as absconders. 6. LEARNED counsel for the applicants submitted that in one similar matter this Court issued contempt notice against the Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow on the ground that the order under Section 82/83 Cr. P. C. was passed by him contrary to the law laid down by this Court in the case of Devendra Singh Negi alias Debu (supra) which was circulated to all the concerned Magistrates. This is also reported in the case of Lakshman Singh v. State of U. P, 1994 U. P. Criminal Rulings 8. It has also been con tended that not only that the law laid down in the case of Devendra Singh Negi was circulated to all the Magistrates, the wife of applicant Kapil Muni Karwaria moved an application and specifically brought the law laid down by this Court to the notice of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, and yet the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate did not pay heed to this and passed the impugned order. The learned counsel submits that in the situation which is identical to that case this Court not only exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482, Cr. P. C., but the powers under Section 483, Cr. P. C. are also liable to be exercised as the disposal of two applications by the learned Magistrate is not proper which is itself clear from the law laid down in the case of devendra Singh Negi alias Debu (supra) as well as the case of Lakshman Singh (supra ). The next question which falls for consideration is whether in the peculiar circumstances of the case, this Court should exercise its powers and jurisdiction under Section 482, Cr. P. C. while in fact the Criminal Revision preferred by the applicants has been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. 7. IN the-matter of Ganesh Narayan Hegde v. S. Bangarappa and others,. J. T. 1995 (4) SC124:1996 JIC 491 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that while it is true that availing of the remedy of the revision to the Sessions Judge under Section 399 does not debar a person from invoking the powers of the High Court under Section 482, Cr. P. C, it is equally true that the High Court should not act as second revisional court in the garb of exercise of inherent power. While exercising its inherent powers in such a matter, it must be conscious of the fact that the learned Sessions Judge has declined to exercise his revisional power in the matter. 8. I have perused the order of the learned Sessions Judge in revision and I find that the learned Sessions Judge has not correctly dealt with the case law laid down in Devendra Singh Negi's case (supra) which was circulated to all the concerned Magistrates in the State for the purpose that they may follow the same. This is not the. case that the learned Sessions Judge was not aware of this case as this case law was specifically referred by the counsel appearing on behalf of the wife of Kapil Muni Karwaria before the Magistrate and the Magistrate did not pass order issuing process under Section 83, Cr. P. C. and 82, Cr. P. C. together in the case of Kapil Muni Karwaria and there was no reason to pass such order in respect of other accused-applicants. P. C. and 82, Cr. P. C. together in the case of Kapil Muni Karwaria and there was no reason to pass such order in respect of other accused-applicants. The learned Sessions Judge has not dealt with the said case law with regard to the issue of process under S. 82/83 Cr. P. C. together by the Magistrate but the learned Sessions Judge has observed as follows: "learned counsel for the applicant urged that it is well-settled law that the process under Section 83, Cr. P. C. can be issued only after the expiry of 30 days reckoned from the date of the order passed under Section 82, Cr. P. C. and there fore the impugned order passed by the court below is illegal. This contention has been repelled by the learned counsel for the State. Proviso to sub-section (1) of section 83, Cr. P. C. makes it clear that the order of attachment may be issued simultaneously with the issue of the proclamation under section 82 Cr. P. C. if the Court is satisfied' 'by affidavit or otherwise' that the person in relation to whom proclamation is to be issued is about to dispose of the whole or any part of the property, or is about to remove the whole or any part of his property from the local jurisdiction of the Court. It cannot, therefore, be said that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had no power to issue the process simultaneously under Sections 82 and 83 Cr. P. C. Undoubtedly this power of issuing the process simultaneously has to be exercised in most sparing and rare cases. The learned Magistrate felt satisfied after perusing the material on record that there exist circumstances to issue the processes simultaneously. "the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate cannot be interfered with by the. revisional court. No illegality or irregularity has been committed by the learned Magistrate in passing the impugned order. " Before proceeding further with this order, it is necessary to indicate here that the learned Magistrate has not issued order under Section 82/83, Cr. P. C. simultaneously, but he has specifically ordered in his order dated 16. 8. 1996 that process under Section 82/83 Cr. P. C. shall be issued together against Udai Bhan Karwaria and Surajbhan Karwaria. The provisions of Sections 82, and 83, Cr. P. C. are necessary for perusal which are repoduced below: "82. P. C. simultaneously, but he has specifically ordered in his order dated 16. 8. 1996 that process under Section 82/83 Cr. P. C. shall be issued together against Udai Bhan Karwaria and Surajbhan Karwaria. The provisions of Sections 82, and 83, Cr. P. C. are necessary for perusal which are repoduced below: "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 30 days from the date of publishing such proclamation. (2) The proclamation shall be published as follows: (1) (a) it shall be publicly read in same conspicuous place of the town or village in which such person ordinarily resides; (b) it shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or in which such person ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of such town or village; (c) a copy thereof shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the Court-house. (ii) the Court may also, if it thinks fit, direct a copy of the proclamation to be published in a daily news paper circulating in the place in which such person ordinarily reasides. (3) A statement in writing by the Court issuing the proclamation to the effect that the proclamation was duly published on a specified day, in the manner specified in clause (i) or sub section (2), shall be conclusive evidence that the requirements of this section have been complied with and that the proclamation was published on such day. 83. (3) A statement in writing by the Court issuing the proclamation to the effect that the proclamation was duly published on a specified day, in the manner specified in clause (i) or sub section (2), shall be conclusive evidence that the requirements of this section have been complied with and that the proclamation was published on such day. 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. (2) Such order shall authorise the attachment of any property belonging to such person within the district in which it is made; and it shall authorise the attachment of any property belonging to such person without such district (when endorsed by the District Magistrate within whose district) such property is situate. (2) Such order shall authorise the attachment of any property belonging to such person within the district in which it is made; and it shall authorise the attachment of any property belonging to such person without such district (when endorsed by the District Magistrate within whose district) such property is situate. (3) If the property ordered to be attached is a debt or other movable property, the attachment under this section shall be made- (a) by seizure; or (b) by the appointment of a receiver, or (c) by an order in writing prohibiting the delivery of such property to the proclaimed per son or to any one on his behalf; or (d) by all or any two of such methods, as the Court thinks fit; (4) If the property ordered to be attached is immovable, the attachment under this section shall, in the case of land paying revenue to the State Government, be made through the Collector of the district in which the land is situate, and in all other cases- (a) by taking possession; or (b) by the appointment of receiver; or (c) by an order in writing prohibiting the delivery of such property to the proclaimed per son or to any one on his behalf; or (d) by all or any two of such methods, as the Court thinks fit. (5) if the property ordered to be attached consists of live-stock or is of a perishable nature, the Court may, if it thinks it expedient, order immediate sale thereof, and in such case the proceeds of the sale shall abide the order of the Court. (6) the lowers, duties and liabilities of a Receiver appointed under this section shall be the same as those of a receiver appointed under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908 ). " A perusal of, Section 83, Cr. P. C. shows that is open for the Magistrate to issue order of attachment of property of the per son absconding, but it may be open only when a proclamation has been issued againt such person and only after issuing such proclamation the process under Section 83, Cr. P. C. may be issued for which specific reasons have to be recorded by the Magistrate for doing so, otherwise he has to follow the provisions of Section 82, Cr. P. C. may be issued for which specific reasons have to be recorded by the Magistrate for doing so, otherwise he has to follow the provisions of Section 82, Cr. P. C. which provides that any person against whom a warrant has been issued has absconded or is concealing himself so that such warrant cannot be executed, the Court may issue a written proclamation requiring him to appear at a specified place and at a specified time not less than 30 days from the date of such proclamation. 9. IN the matter of Devendra Singh Negi alias Debu (supra) this Court has held as under: "the procedure laid down under Section 83 has to be followed strictly. Jurisdiction to pass an attachment order cannot be assumed unless a proclamation under Section 82 of the Code has been issued. The normal rule is that the Magistrate has to wait until the expiry of 30 days to enable the accused to appear in terms of the proclamation. The words "at any time after the issue of proclamation" are not to be interpreted in isolation. The key for gathering the intention of the law-makers is to be found in Section 82 of the Code. Sections 82 and 83 of the Code do not spell out dichotomous procedures, they are to be read in harmony. Thus except in cases covered by the proviso to Section 83 (1) the attachment order has to maintain a distance of not less than 30 days from the date of the publication, under Section 82. These 30 days are to be commuted from the date of the publication of the proclamation and the revisions in this respect are mandatory. [see : Gurappa Gugal and others v. State of Mysore, 1969 Cr. LJ. 326]. The words 'at any time' in Section 83 (1) only mean than if after the issue of proclamation either of the two conditions mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to Section 83 (1) come into existence an order of attachment may be made without waiting for 30 days to expire. Even in such a case the Magistrate has to record his reasons for arriving at the judicial satisfaction that such conditions as maintained in the proviso have come into existence. Even in such a case the Magistrate has to record his reasons for arriving at the judicial satisfaction that such conditions as maintained in the proviso have come into existence. If Section 83 (1) is interpreted to mean that it confers arbitrary powers on the Magistrate to order an attachment at their sweet-will or in a whimsical manner. Section 83 (1) of the Code might have to be struck down as violative of Articles 11 and 21 of the Constitution. IN the case of Menkka Gandhi v. Union of India AIR 1973 SC 591, it was held that equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies. In para 56 the Supreme Court observed: "the principle of reasonableness, which legally as well as philosophically is an essential element of equality or non-arbitrariness pervades Article 14 like a (sic) omnipresence. . . . . . . . " IN view of the above facts and circumstances this court has no hesitation to observe that the learned Sessions Judge has not exercised his jurisdiction property conferred on him under Section 397/399 Cr. P. C. and the purposes of circulation the judgment of this Court in the case of Devendra Singh Negi alias Debu (supra) to all Magistrates to follow the same has been defeated and, a such, it is a fit case for interference by this Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482, Cr. P. C. 10. FURTHER in Devendra Singh Negi's case (supra) it has been laid down that the words" has absconded or is concealing him self so that such warrant cannot be executed" in Section 82 of the Code are significant. Every person who is not immediately available cannot be characterised as an absconder. The Court has to record its satisfaction that the accused has absconded or is concealing in order to avoid execution of the warrant. The provisions of Section 82 are mandatory and are to be construed strictly. Section 82 requires that the court must, in the first instance, issue a warrant and it must put down its reasons for believing that the accused is absconding or concealing himself. Thus in every case where the war rant is not executed resort cannot be had to section 82 and it may be necessary to ex amine the officer concerned who had gone to execute the warrant and to the measures adopted by him to serve the same. 11. Thus in every case where the war rant is not executed resort cannot be had to section 82 and it may be necessary to ex amine the officer concerned who had gone to execute the warrant and to the measures adopted by him to serve the same. 11. IN the instant matter the first information report was lodged on 13th August, 1996. Application for issuing process u/s 82/83, Cr. P. C. was moved by the concerned police on next day i.e. 14th August, 19%. The non-bailable warrant were issued on the same day i.e. 14th August, 19%. The next day 15th August, 1996was a holiday and on 16th August, 1996 the Court issued the process under S. 82, Cr. P. C. which is not in accordance with the terms laid down in Devendra Singh Negi's case (supra) and in these facts and circumstances of the case it could not be said that the applicants were absconder or were concealing themselves within the meaning of Section 82, Cr. P. C. 12. IN the result the petitions succeed and are allowed. The orders of the learned Sessions Judge, dated 17-8-1996 and that of the Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 16-8-1996are hereby quashed. It is further ordered that in case the property of the applicants has been attached, the same shall be released forthwith. It will, however, be open for the learned Magistrate to pass fresh orders regarding proclamation under Section 82 and attachment under Section 83 Cr. P. C. in accordance with law, if the same is so required to be passed. Petition allowed.