ORDER : The petitioner, in this application, is challenging the orders dated 03.03.2016 and 14.06.2016 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, corresponding to G.R. Case. No. 1729 of 2013 by which process under Sections 82 and 83 of the Cr. P.C. has been issued against the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is an accused for the offence under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. The warrant of arrest was issued on 03.03.2016. The Investigating Officer has filed a requisition through learned A.P.P with a prayer to issue process under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. against the petitioner along with service report of non-bailable warrant of arrest stating that the accused is absconding. On the basis of the said service report the Court has issued the process under Section 82 of the Cr. P.C. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is absolutely cryptic and does not record any subjective satisfaction as envisaged under the law. 4. It would be appropriate to quote the order dated 03.03.2016 passed by the court below:- “I.O. Filed a requisition through Ld. A.P.P. with prayer to issue 82 Cr. P.C. against accused, namely, Jai Nandan Pd. Singh along with service report of N/B/W stating accused is absconding, on this ground he made prayer to issue Cr. P.C. against aforesaid accused.” “Seen prayer is allowed issue 82 Cr. P.C. against said accused.” 5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the same and submits that since the warrant of arrest could not be executed, the Court had no other option but to issue the process under Sections 82 and thereafter under section 83 of Cr.P.C. 6. Section 82 Cr. P.C. provides for issuance of proclamation to the persons who are absconding. The opening line of the said provisions says that if the Court has reasons to believe that any persons against whom a warrant is issued is absconding then only process under section 82 Cr. P.C. has to be issued. 7. The basic criteria is that there should be a subjective satisfaction of the Court that the person against whom such order is being issued, is absconding. This subjective satisfaction of the Court must be reflected in the impugned order itself. 8. In the instant case the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has only seen the prayer made by the I.O and issued process under Section 82 Cr. P.C. which is evident from the order itself. This subjective satisfaction of the Court must be reflected in the impugned order itself. 8. In the instant case the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has only seen the prayer made by the I.O and issued process under Section 82 Cr. P.C. which is evident from the order itself. He has written only “seen prayer is allowed, issue 82 Cr.P.C. against said accused.” There is no recording of any sort of satisfaction on the point whether he has reasons to believe that this petitioner is absconding or not. The subjective satisfaction is lacking in the entire order. 9. Same is the position with the impugned order dated 14.03.2016 which also does not record any subjective satisfaction as to why the process under section 83 Cr. P.C is to be issued. Section 83 also provides for recording of reasons for issuance of the process under Section 83 Cr. P.C. 10. Since there is no subjective satisfaction recorded in both the impugned orders, I find merit in this application. Accordingly, the orders dated 03.03.2016 and 14.06.2016 whereby processes under Sections 82 and 83 Cr. P.C was issued against the petitioner, is hereby set aside. The Court below is directed to proceed, in accordance with law. 11. Thus, this application stands allowed.