(1) A vital factor in both the detection and prevention of crime is the execution of the law in respect of absconding and harbouring. The provisions of the law are adequate to prevent both these offences but their proper and comprehensive administration demands the constant attention of Magistrates and supervising police officers. The absence or prevalence of absconding and harbouring are among the acid tests of the efficiency of the criminal administration. Instructions as to the taking out and execution of warrants when persons, whose arrest is required, are not immediately found, are contained in rule 26.5. This is the first essential. Under Section 87, Code of Criminal Procedure, any Court may at any time issue a proclamation against a person for whose arrest that court has issued a warrant. All that is necessary is that the court should be satisfied, not necessarily by evidence, that the said person ‘‘has absconded or is concealing himself so that such warrant cannot be executed’’. The court may further at any time after proclamation ‘‘order the attachment of any property, move- able or immovable, or both, belonging to the proclaimed person’’. The period of thirty days mentioned in Section 87, Code of Criminal Procedure, is that within which the absconder is called upon to surrender, it imposes no delay on the issue of attachment orders. The issue of a proclamation under Section 87, Code of Criminal Procedure, renders liable to the penalties of Section 216, Indian Penal Code, any one who gives to the person pro- claimed any assistance of the nature described in Section 52-A, Indian Penal Code. (2) The action prescribed in rule 26.5 for obtaining a warrant of arrest shall be taken by the police immediately they have grounds for making such arrest. Every reasonable efforts to execute such warrant shall then be taken. If such efforts fail, the court which issued the warrant must be satisfied that the warrant cannot be executed; evidence of the guilt of the wanted man in the offence under investigation is not required. When a proclamation order has been obtained, the police are bound to publish that order as required by Section 87(2), Code of Criminal Procedure. Immediately this has been done the requirements of Section 87(3), Code of Criminal Procedure, shall be complied with. Thereupon, the person wanted becomes a ‘‘proclaimed offender’’ and the rules in Chapter XXIII regarding the entry of such person’s name in the surveillance register, list of proclaimed offenders, notices to village headmen and watchmen of all places where he has connections or which he is likely to visit etcetera shall be forthwith complied with. (3) The procedure of search under warrant and proclamation shall be carried out in every case in which a wanted person cannot be immediately arrested without warrant by the investigating officer. Discretion may be exercised by both the police and magistrates whether to proceed with attachment of property under Section 88, Code of Civil Procedure. In every case, where there is danger of more crime resulting from an absconder remaining at large an attachment order shall be immediately applied for. The police are not authorized to carry out attachment, but it is the duty of the prosecuting branch to see that the necessary orders issued from the court without any delay, and of the officer conducting the investigation to take steps to prevent the improper alienation of attachable property by fictitious mortgage or sale. For this purpose lists of such property should be made, as part of the investigation, and attached to the police file of the case, and the village headman concerned should be directed to report any attempt at alienation or removal pending the issue of attachment orders. The lists of property prepared by the investigating officer, attested by competent witnesses, should be put into court with the application for an attachment order. (4) To prevent harbouring, without which no absconder can remain at large, thorough publicity in regard to the issue of a warrant and subsequent proclamation order is essential. If this receives proper attention, the defence of ignorance is denied to the person who can be proved to have rendered any sort of assistance to an absconder.