← Library
Madras High CourtCRL MP/1133/2022ordered

D.Gemini @ Manikandan v. The Sub Divisional Magistrate And Revenue Divisional Officer

2022-03-29Honourable Mr Justice R. Pongiappan5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 29.03.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN Crl.M.P.No.1133 of 2022 in Crl.R.C.No.115 of 2022 D.Gemini @ Manikandan ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Sub Divisional Magistrate and ... Respondents Revenue Divisional Officer, Kancheepuram, Kancheepuram District 2.State represented by The Inspector of Police, B-3, Kanchi Taluk Police Station, Kanchipuram, Kanchipuram District.

PRAYER: The Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 397

(1) of Cr.P.C., to suspend the sentence of imprisonment imposed in order dated 30.12.2021 made in Na.Ka.2347/2021/A1 on the file of the Sub Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Kancheepuram Sub Division, Kancheepuram / respondent No.1 and enlarge the petitioner on bail pending disposal of the above revision petition.

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Saranraj For Respondents : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the petitioner/Accused, seeking suspension of sentence of imprisonment, imposed against the petitioner in Na.Ka.2347/2021/A1 dated 30.12.2021 by the Sub Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Kancheepuram Sub Division, Kancheepuram.

2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had involved in Cr.No.1318 of 2020 for the alleged offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 307 of IPC and subsequently he was enlarged on bail and on 23.07.2021 without furnishing any material and without affording opportunity to the petitioner, he was compelled to furnish secutity for keeping good behaviour and accordingly, he had executed a bond under Section 110 Cr.P.C on 23.07.2021, whereas he was falsely implicated in Crime No.1753 of 2021 for the offence under Sections 294(b), 427, 392, 397, 307 and 506(ii) of IPC on the file of B-2 Vishnu Kanchi Police Station and in Crime No.

1601 of 2021 for the offences punishable under Section 147, 148, 448, 294(b), 323, 307 & 506(ii) of IPC and Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition Harassment Women Act, 2002 and he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 26.11.2021 by the second respondent and when he was in judicial custody, the petitioner was produced before the first respondent on 27.12.2021 and without affording sufficient opportunity to defend his case, he has been clamped with the detention order directing him to be in prison for a period of 214 days.

3. He would further submit that this Court, earlier, in the case of P.Sathish Vs State and another, in Crl.R.C.(MD) No.302 of 2017 dated 09.08.2017 had issued certain directions to be followed by the Executive Magistrate before clamping detention orders. Further, in the judgment rendered in Devi Vs State, in Crl.R.C.No.78 of 2020, by order dated 25.09.2020, another Hon'ble Judge of this Court had doubted the power of the Deputy Commissioner of Police in passing detention order and while deferring with the view taken in P.Sathish Vs State and another, cited supra had referred the issues to the Hon'ble Chief Justice for constituting a larger bench and thereby, it would take some time to decide the issue. He would therefore, pray for suspension of sentence pending revision.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), would submit that the petitioner had furnished a bond to be of good behaviour on 23.07.2021. On violation of the bond, he had involved in the offence. The petitioner had previous cases before the execution of the bond, had involved himself in subsequent cases registered in Crime No.1753 of 2021 for the offence under Sections 294(b), 427, 392, 397, 307 and 506(ii) of IPC on the file of B-2 Vishnu Kanchi Police Station and in Crime No.1601 of 2021 for the offences punishable under Section 147, 148, 448, 294(b), 323, 307 & 506(ii) of IPC and Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition Harassment Women Act, 2002 on the file of the second respondent police. The first respondent, after affording sufficient opportunity, finding violation of the bond, passed the order of detention.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials on record.

6. This Court in "Devi Versus The Executive Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner of Police, St.Thomas Mount District" in Crl.R.C.No.78 of 2020, by order dated 25.09.2020, had deferred with the findings given in Crl.R.C.No.982 of 2018, dated 24.11.2018 and held in paragraph No.20 as follows:- "42 Since this Court respectfully differs from V. Parthiban, J. on the issue of applicability of Section 122(1)(b) Cr.P.C. to a good behaviour bond under Section 110(e), the Registry is directed to place this matter before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for appropriate orders.

43 Further, as this Court is not in agreement with the view propounded by another learned single judge of this Court in Balamurugan (supra), the following question is framed with a direction to the Registry to place the same before the Hon'ble Chief Justice with a request to constitute a Bench of appropriate strength for an authoritative pronouncement:

Whether G.O.Ms.No.659, Home (Cts. VIA) Department dated 12.09.2013 and G.O. Ms.No.181, Home (Cts.VIA) Department dated 20.02.2014 violate the scheme of separation of powers and are ultra vires the proviso to Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu District Police Act, 1868 (Central Act XXIV of 1868)?"

7. Now, both the learned Single Judges of this Court have referred the issues to be placed before the Hon'ble The Chief Justice for constituting a larger bench with regard to applicability of Section 122(1)(b) Cr.P.C., the power exercised by police officers can it be said to be power exercised as Executive Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure and for other connected issues.

8. In view of the above and it is learnt that it would take some time for the above issues to be decided, this Court is inclined to suspend the sentence imposed on the petitioner alone, with the following conditions:- (a) The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kanchipuram

(b) The petitioner and the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impressions in the surety bonds and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhaar Cards or Bank Pass Books to ensure their identities.

(c) The petitioner shall report before the second respondent Police daily at 5.00 p.m., until further orders.

9. Hence, the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is ordered to the extent of granting Suspension of Sentence. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, is directed to set the petitioner at liberty, if his further detention is no longer required in connection with any other case or proceedings.

10. The Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is ordered accordingly. -sd/- 29/03/2022 This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned TRUE COPY Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104.

TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NO.1, KANCHIPURAM.

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE CHENGALPATTU. [FOR INFORMATION] 3 THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE AND REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KANCHIPURAM, KANCHIPURAM DISTRICT.

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, B-3, KANCHI TALUK POLICE STATION, KANCHIPURAM, KANCHIPURAM DISTRICT.

5 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

6 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, PUZHAL, CHENNAI.

Copy To:

THE SECTION OFFICER, CRIMINAL SECTION, HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

+1 C.C. to M/S.A.SARANRAJ Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO.4694 Order in CRL MP.1133/2022 in CRL RC.115/2022 Date :29/03/2022 From 7.2.2001 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the BAIL/Anti.BAIL Orders in this format TA-30/03/2022