Mani@Manikandan v. The Second Class Taluk Executive Magistrate Cum Revenue Tahsildar

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATE : 25.01.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. THARANI and Crl.M.P.(MD)No.961 of 2022 Mani @ Manikandan .. Petitioner Vs.

1.The Second Class Taluk Executive Magistrate Cum Revenue Tahsildar, Dindigul East, Dindigul.

2.The State Rep. By its, Inspector of Police, Dindigul Town South Police Station, Dindigul District.

3.The Superintendent, Sub Jail, Vedasandur, Dindigul District.

.. Respondents Prayer : This criminal revision case is filed under Sections 397 r/w. 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the entire records relating to the order of the first respondent by his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.07/2021/A1 dated 29.12.2021 and to set aside the same as illegal.

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Arun For Respondents : Mr.K.Sanjay Gandhi, Government Advocate

ORDER

This petition has been filed to set aside the proceedings passed in Na.Ka.No.7/2021/A1 dated 29.12.2021, on the file of the first respondent.

2.The second respondent referred a case in LIR.No.152 of 2021 before the first respondent. In M.C.No.152/2021, dated 04.10.2021 the petitioner executed a bond before the first respondent for maintaining good behavior for a period of six months. Subsequently, the petitioner involved in a case in Crime No.1289 of 2021 under 1/3

Sections 387 and 506(ii) of IPC. On the requisition of the second respondent, the first respondent passed the impugned order under Section 122(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., directing the petitioner to be in custody till 03.04.2022. Against that order, the petitioner preferred this revision petition.

3.On the side of the petitioner, it is stated that the petitioner executed a bond on 04.10.2021 for maintaining good behavior. But subsequently a false case was foisted against the petitioner. The petitioner was produced before the first respondent on 29.12.2021. Without conducting proper enquiry and without furnishing copies to the petitioner and without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his case, the impugned order was passed by the first respondent on the same date and prayed the impugned order to be set aside.

4.On the side of the respondents, it is stated that the petitioner has violated the bond conditions and indulged in an offence in Crime No.1289 of 2021. The petitioner is also having a previous case and prayed the petition to be dismissed. 5.A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the petitioner was produced before the first respondent on 29.12.2021 and the impugned order was passed on the same date. There is no mentioning made in the impugned order whether copies were furnished to the petitioner and whether the petitioner was given opportunity to cross examine the witness. The petitioner is in custody from 28.10.2021. Almost half of the bond period was already over. In the above circumstances, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 6.In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The petitioner is directed to be released forthwith, unless his presence is required in any other case. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CRL SIDE) // True Copy // / /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) Mrn Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID - 19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate / litigant concerned.

2/3

To 1.The Second Class Taluk Executive Magistrate Cum Revenue Tahsildar, Dindigul East, Dindigul.

2.The Inspector of Police, Dindigul Town South Police Station, Dindigul District.

3.The Superintendent, Sub Jail, Vedasandur, Dindigul District.

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

+1 CC to M/s.B.ARUN, Advocate ( SR-2761[F] dated 28/01/2022 ) 25.01.2022 PK(CO) TR(28.01.2022) 3P 6C 3/3