JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the parties. 2. 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 five different orders passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Bermo at Tenughat in connection with Forest Case No. 15 of 2011. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner is an accused of the said Forest Case No. 15 of 2011 in which cognizance has been taken by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat vide order dated 26.03.2012 against the petitioners of having committed the offences punishable under Section 33, 41 & 42 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. Consequent upon cognizance, summons was issued to the petitioner but without receipt of the service report of the summon issued to the petitioner, vide order dated 16.10.2012, the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Bermo at Tenughat issued bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner. In the said case, on 21.06.2014, without the execution report of the bailable warrant of arrest, having been received in the court, the learned Judicial Magistrate directed for issue of non-bailable warrant of arrest inter-alia against the petitioner. Vide order dated 04.02.2018/05.02.2018 without recording any satisfaction that the petitioner is absconding and evading his arrest and without fixing any time or place for appearance of the accused person of the case, the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. was directed to be issued. On 06.02.2019, in the said case, without any execution report of the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C., the process under Section 83 Cr.P.C. was issued. On 26.04.2019, in the said case, the petitioner was declared permanent absconder by the concerned Judicial Magistrate and the learned Judicial Magistrate directed deposit of the case record in the record room. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Magistrate has committed a grave illegality by issuing the bailable warrant of arrest vide order dated 16.10.2012 in the said case without the service report of the notice issued to the petitioner. Similarly, without receiving the execution report of the bailable warrant of arrest, non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner illegally, as the learned Magistrate ought not have issued the non-bailable warrant of arrest, before receipt of the execution report of the bailable warrant of arrest. Similarly, without receiving the execution report of the bailable warrant of arrest, non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner illegally, as the learned Magistrate ought not have issued the non-bailable warrant of arrest, before receipt of the execution report of the bailable warrant of arrest. It is next submitted that the learned Magistrate has also committed a grave error by issuing the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. without following the due process of law and without recording the satisfaction that the petitioner is absconding or concealing himself to evade his arrest; which is a sine qua non for issuing the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. that too without mentioning any time and place for appearance of the petitioner. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that without any material available in the record that the proclamation issued against the petitioner has been made, the learned Judicial Magistrate committed a grave illegality by issuing the process for attachment of the property of the petitioner under Section 83 of Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that so far as the order dated 26.04.2019 is concerned, the condition precedent for declaring a person absconder and issuing permanent warrant of arrest is that, it must be proved before the court concerned, that the accused has absconded and there is no immediate prospect of arresting him but in this case, there being no material in the record to suggest that there is no immediate prospect for arresting the petitioner, the learned Judicial Magistrate committed a grave illegality in declaring him absconder and issuing permanent warrant of arrest. Hence, it is submitted that the order dated 26.04.2019 being not sustainable in law, the same be also quashed and set aside. 5. The learned Addl. Hence, it is submitted that the order dated 26.04.2019 being not sustainable in law, the same be also quashed and set aside. 5. The learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand opposes the prayer to quash the said five orders; as already mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs of this Judgment and submits that the very fact that the learned Judicial Magistrate has issued the bailable warrant of arrest, non-bailable warrant of arrest, proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C., attachment under Section 83 of Cr.P.C. and the order declaring the petitioner to be an absconder itself shows that there were materials available in the record for the learned Judicial Magistrate to be satisfied that there is justification for issuance of such bailable warrant of arrest, non- bailable warrant of arrest, proclamation, order of attachment and declaring the petitioner to be a permanent absconder. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit, be dismissed. 6. 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 since the learned Magistrate vide order dated 04.05.2012 directed issue of summons to the petitioner, so without receipt of service report of summon issued to the petitioner, it ought not have directed bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner vide order dated 16.10.2012 without recording its satisfaction that the petitioner is evading his arrest. 7. Accordingly, the order dated 16.10.2012, passed in connection with Forest Case No. 15 of 2011 being not sustainable in law, the same is quashed and set aside. 8. So far as the order dated 21.06.2014, passed in the said Forest Case No. 15 of 2011 is concerned, since the learned Magistrate has directed for issue of the bailable warrant of arrest, so without the execution report of the bailable warrant of arrest having been received back in the record, the learned Magistrate has committed a grave illegality by passing the order for issue of non-bailable warrant of arrest vide order dated 21.06.2014. 9. Accordingly, the order dated 21.06.2014, passed in the said Forest Case No. 15 of 2011 being not sustainable in law, the same is quashed and set aside. 10. 9. Accordingly, the order dated 21.06.2014, passed in the said Forest Case No. 15 of 2011 being not sustainable in law, the same is quashed and set aside. 10. So far as the order dated 04.02.2018/05.02.2018 is concerned, 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. was issued. As already indicated above since the learned Judicial Magistrate has neither recorded its satisfaction that the petitioner is absconding or concealing himself to evade his arrest nor fixed any time or place for appearance of the petitioner, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the learned Judicial Magistrate has committed gross illegality by issuing the said proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. without complying the mandatory requirements of law. Hence, the said order dated 04.02.2018/05.02.2018, passed in Forest Case No. 15 of 2011 is not sustainable in law and the continuation of the same will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case where the said order dated 04.02.2018/05.02.2018 be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the order dated 04.02.2018/05.02.2018 passed in Forest Case No. 15 of 2011 is quashed and set aside. 11. So far as the orders dated 06.02.2019 passed in the said Forest Case No. 15 of 2011 is concerned, it is a settled principle of law that the court which issues the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. may for reasons to be recorded in writing at any time after the issue of the proclamation, order for attachment of any property movable or immovable or both belonging to the proclaimed person. Now, in the absence of any material in the record to suggest that the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. was in fact made in accordance with law, certainly the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Bermo at Tenughat has committed gross illegality by passing the order of attachment of property of the petitioner 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 of attachment of the property of the petitioner dated 06.02.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Bermo at Tenughat in Forest Case No. 15 of 2011 is also not in accordance with law and continuation of the same will amount to abuse of process of law. 12. Accordingly, the order dated 06.02.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Bermo at Tenughat in Forest Case No. 15 of 2011 is also quashed and set aside. 13. So far as the order dated 26.04.2019 is concerned, it is a settled principle of law that before exercising the power under Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is necessary that all conditions prescribed must strictly be complied with namely the court must be satisfied that the accused has absconded or that there is no immediate prospect of arresting him, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Nirmal Singh vs. State of Haryana , reported in (2000) 4 SCC 41 . 14. Now coming to the facts of the case, the perusal of the record reveals that there is absolutely no material in the record to suggest that the petitioner has absconded or that there is no immediate prospect of arresting him. In the absence of that, certainly the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Bermo at Tenughat has committed a grave illegality by declaring the petitioner to be an absconder and issuing permanent warrant of arrest. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the said order dated 26.04.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate - 1st Class, Bermo at Tenughat in connection with Forest Case No. 15 of 2011 is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, the same is quashed and set aside. 15. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the said order dated 26.04.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate - 1st Class, Bermo at Tenughat in connection with Forest Case No. 15 of 2011 is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, the same is quashed and set aside. 15. The learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bermo at Tenughat or its successor court may pass fresh order in accordance with law. 16. This criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent only.