JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. Though this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash several orders but at the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners abandons the other prayers and confines his prayer only to quash the orders dated 27.11.2015 and 24.06.2016 whereby and where under proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and the attachment order of property under Section 83 Cr.P.C. respectively have been passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj in Sessions Trial No. 225 of 2019 arising out of Sahebganj (T) P.S. Case No. 184 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. No. 588 of 2014. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. has been issued vide order dated 27.11.2015 without following the due process of law. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that inadvertently, because of clerical error, in the prayer portion instead of the petitioners seeking the prayer to quash the order dated 27.11.2015 has erroneously mentioned that they seek to quash the order dated 13.05.2016. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj while passing the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has not recorded the satisfaction that the petitioners are absconding or concealing themselves to evade their arrest which is a sine qua non for issuing proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that vide order dated 24.06.2016, order for attachment of the property of the accused persons of the case including the petitioners has been issued under Section 83 of Cr.P.C. without mentioning the property to be attached and without recording any reason for issuing such attachment order. Hence, it is submitted that the orders dated 27.11.2015 and 24.06.2016 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj in Sessions Trial No. 225 of 2019 arising out of Sahebganj (T) P.S. Case No. 184 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. No. 588 of 2014; being not in accordance with law, be quashed and set aside. 4. Learned Addl. Hence, it is submitted that the orders dated 27.11.2015 and 24.06.2016 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj in Sessions Trial No. 225 of 2019 arising out of Sahebganj (T) P.S. Case No. 184 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. No. 588 of 2014; being not in accordance with law, be quashed and set aside. 4. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for quashing the orders dated 27.11.2015 and 24.06.2016 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj in Sessions Trial No. 225 of 2019 arising out of Sahebganj (T) P.S. Case No. 184 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. No. 588 of 2014 and submits that the very fact that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj has issued the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. and the order of attachment under Section 83 of Cr.P.C. itself shows that there were materials available in the record for the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj to be satisfied that there is justification for issuance of such proclamation and proceeding. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 5. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that by now it is a settled principle of law that the court which issues the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. must record its satisfaction that the accused in respect of whom the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. is made, is absconding or concealing himself to evade his arrest and in case the court decides to issue proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C., it must mention the time and place for appearance of the petitioner in the order itself by which the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. is issued. As already indicated above since the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj has neither recorded its satisfaction that the petitioners are absconding or concealing themselves to evade their arrest nor fixed any time or place for appearance of the petitioners, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj has committed illegality by issuing the said proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. without complying the mandatory requirements of law. Hence, the same is not sustainable in law and the continuation of the same will amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit case where the order dated 27.11.2015 be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the order dated 27.11.2015 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj in Sessions Trial No. 225 of 2019 arising out of Sahebganj (T) P.S. Case No. 184 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. No. 588 of 2014, is quashed and set aside. 6. So far as the order dated 24.06.2016 is concerned, it is a settled principle of law that the court issuing proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. may for reasons to be recorded in writing at any time after the issue of proclamation, may order for attachment of any property movable or immovable or both belonging to the accused persons in respect of whom the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C was issued. Now, coming to the facts of the case, certainly the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj committed illegality by passing the order of attachment of property of the petitioners without mentioning the description of the property to be attached and without recording any reason in writing about the need for passing such order of attachment. Hence, under such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the order dated 24.06.2016 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj in Sessions Trial No. 225 of 2019 arising out of Sahebganj (T) P.S. Case No. 184 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. No. 588 of 2014 is also not in accordance with law and continuation of the same will amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit case where the order dated 24.06.2016 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj in Sessions Trial No. 225 of 2019 arising out of Sahebganj (T) P.S. Case No. 184 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. No. 588 of 2014, be quashed and set aside. 7. Accordingly, the order dated 24.06.2016 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj in Sessions Trial No. 225 of 2019 arising out of Sahebganj (T) P.S. Case No. 184 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. No. 588 of 2014, is quashed and set aside. 8. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj or its successor court may pass a fresh order in accordance with law. 9. 8. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj or its successor court may pass a fresh order in accordance with law. 9. In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed to the aforesaid extent only.