There is no Section 537 in Cr.P.C. Perhaps, you have referred to Section 537 of the old Cr.P.C. of 1898, which corresponds to Section 465 of the current Cr.P.C. of 1973.
What you have mentioned is basically a typographical error and not a substantial error of law or fact. As you have mentioned, the accused is already on bail from the same court and has now jumped bail, so he is well aware of the court in which the case is pending and by which court the proclamation is being issued. Usually, such error should not be considered to be a fatal error.
Section 465 Cr.P.C. lays down that an error, omission or irregularity in the complaint, summons, warrant, proclamation, order, judgment or other proceedings before or during trial or in any inquiry or other proceedings under the Code, or any error, or irregularity in any sanction for the prosecution, shall not be fatal unless in the opinion of that Court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby.
In view of these reasons, I am of the opinion that such a typographical error in the description of the court should not vitiate the proceedings, when the accused very well understands in which court the proceedings have been initiated and when there is hardly any scope for failure of justice having been occasioned. If the accused had been completely misled genuinely by a defective order due to which he could not take relevant steps for his defence, then, perhaps, it would have been a different matter altogether.
In any case, if possible, you may still issue a corrigendum in the publication or issue a fresh publication of the proclamation so as not to leave any doubt.
Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers. List of his YouTube Videos.
.
