JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with a prayer to quash the orders dated 13.02.2012/05.03.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Palamau in S.T. No.77 (B)/2011 whereby and where under the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Palamau has directed the office clerk to issue process under Section 82/83 of Cr.P.C. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Palamau has committed a grave illegality by ordering issuance of proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. by the said order, without following the due process of law and without recording any 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. and without any material available in the record to suggest that the petitioner is about to dispose of whole or any part of his property or to remove whole or any part of his property from local jurisdiction of the court concerned, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Palamau has committed a grave illegality by simultaneously issuing the attachment order of the property of the petitioner, along with the proclamation under section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed. 4. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P. and submits that the fact that the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Palamau has issued the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. and order of attachment of property of the petitioner under Section 83 of Cr.P.C. itself shows that there were materials available in the record for the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Palamau to be satisfied that there is justification for issuance of such proclamation and attachment order. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 5. 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. The additional requirement for simultaneously issuing the attachment order of the property along with the proclamation under Section 83 of Cr.P.C. is that the court concerned must record reasons in writing that the court was satisfied by affidavit or otherwise that the petitioner is about to dispose of whole or any part of his property or to remove whole or any part of his property from local jurisdiction of the court concerned. 6. Now, coming to the court facts of the case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Palamau has neither recorded his satisfaction that the petitioner is absconding or concealing himself to evade his arrest nor fixed any time or place for appearance of the petitioner. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Palamau has committed a gross illegality by issuing the said proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. without complying with the mandatory requirements of law. There is also no material in the record by way of affidavit or otherwise to suggest that the petitioner is about to dispose of whole or any part of his property or to remove whole or any part of his property from local jurisdiction of the court concerned. 7. Under such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Palamau has committed a grave illegality by issuing the proclamation and the attachment order of the property of the petitioner under Section 82/83 of the Cr.P.C. 8. 7. Under such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Palamau has committed a grave illegality by issuing the proclamation and the attachment order of the property of the petitioner under Section 82/83 of the Cr.P.C. 8. Accordingly, the order dated 13.02.2012/05.03.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Palamau in S.T. No.77 (B)/2011, being not sustainable in law, is quashed and set aside. 9. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Palamau may pass a fresh order in accordance with law. 10. In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed.