← Library
Madras High CourtCRL RC/938/2023allowed

Ananthan v. Executive Magistrate Cum Deputy Commissioner

2023-06-23Honourable Mr Justice V.Sivagnanam6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 23.06.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM Crl.R.C.No.938 of 2023 Ananthan ...

Petitioner /vs/

1. The Executive Magistrate cum Deputy Commissioner, T.Nagar Police District Chennai.

2. The Inspector of Police, R-11, Ramapuram Police Station, Ramapuram, Chennai - 600 089.

... Respondents Prayer : Criminal Revision Petition filed under section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records, examine the same for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality and set aside the impugned Order dated 08.08.2022 in M.P.No.1 of 2022 in Na.ka.No.281/Nir Se nadu Ka. Thu.Aa.thi.ma/2022 on the file of the first respondent. For petitioner ... Mr.V.Ramanareddy For Respondents ... Mr.R. Vinothraja, GA (crl.side) 1/6

ORDER

This Criminal Revision has been preferred seeking to set aside the Order dated 08.08.2022 passed under section 122 [1] [b] of Cr.P.C. in M.P.No.1 of 2022 in Na.ka.No.281/Nir Se nadu /Ka. Thu.Aa.thi.ma/2022 under section u/s.109 of Cr.P.C. by the first respondent.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 1st respondent, in pursuance of the case registered by the second respondent, initiated proceedings against the petitioner and made him to execute a bond on 20.07.2022 under section 110 of C.P.C., for maintaining good behaviour for a period of one year. Subsequently, a case has been registered against the petitioner in Cr.No.505 of 2022 of R.5 Virugambakkam Police Station for the offence under section 392 of IPC. Since the petitioner violated the bond condition, the 1st respondent, proceeded against the petitioner under section 122(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., and remanded the petitioner to prison by his proceedings in M.C.No.1 of 2022, dated 08.08.2022 to undergo imprisonment for the remaining period of 362 days. He further submitted that in view of the judgment 2/6

of the Division Bench of this Court dated 13.03.2023 in Cr.R.C.No.137 of 2018 batch cases [P.Sathish @ Sathis Kumar Vs State Rep by The Inspector of Police, Law and Order, H-4 Korukkupet Police Station, Chennai], the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent is unsustainable, Therefore, he seeks to set aside the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent.

3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents fairly conceded that the 1st respondent is not competent authority to pass an order under Section 122(1)(b) Cr.P.C. 4.I have considered the matter in the light of submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. 5.On a perusal of the records and the impugned order, it reveals that the 1st respondent in pursuance complaint with affidavit given by the second respondent, initiated proceedings under section 107 Cr.P.C., against the petitioner and directed to him to execute a bond for keeping 3/6

good behaviour under section 110 of Cr.P.C., pursuant to which, the petitioner executed a bond for keeping good behaviour on 20.07.2022 for a period of one year. Since the petitioner has violated the bond executed before the Executive Magistrate, the 1st respondent proceeded against him under Section 122(1)(b) Cr.P.C and finally remanded him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 362 days.

6. It is relevant to note that in the order dated 13.03.2023 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Cr.R.C.No.137 of 2018 batch cases [P.Sathish @ Sathis Kumar Vs State Rep by The Inspector of Police, Law and Order, H-4 Korukkupet Police Station, Chennai], wherein, this Court relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1982) 1 SCC 71 [Gulam Abbas Vs State of Uttar Pradesh]. In paragraph 80 (e) of the said order dated 23.06.2023, it has been held as follows:- "80 (e) In the light of the law laid down in paragraph 24 of the three judge bench decision of the Supreme Court in Gulam Abbas Vs State of Uttar Pradesh (1982) 1 SCC 71, an Executive 4/6

Magistrate cannot authorize imprisonment under Section 123(1)(b) for violation of a bond under Section 107 Cr.P.C. A person who has violated the bond executed before the Executive Magistrate under the said provision will have to be challenged or prosecuted before the Judicial Magistrate for inquiry and punishment under Section 122(1)(b)Cr.P.C"

7. In the light of the above, the 1st respondent is not competent authority to impose any punishment under Section 122(1)(b)Cr.P.C. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent is set aside and the Criminal Revision Case is allowed.

23.06.2023 vrc Note : Issue Order Copy on 26.06.2023 To

1. The Executive Magistrate cum Deputy Commissioner, T.Nagar Police District Chennai.

2. The Inspector of Police, R-11, Ramapuram Police Station, Ramapuram, Chennai - 600 089.

3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal.

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. 5/6

V.SIVAGNANAM, J.

vrc Crl.R.C.No.938 of 2023 23.06.2023 6/6