Madras High Court
Vinoth Kumar vs Sub-Divisional Magistrate And on 31 August, 2021
Crl.R.C.No.502 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 31.08.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Criminal Revision Case No.502 of 2021
Vinoth Kumar ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Sub-divisional Magistrate and
Revenue Divisional Officer
Tiruppur
2.State by Inspector of Police
Perumanallur Police Station
Tiruppur District ... Respondent
Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 and 401 of
Criminal Procedure Code, praying to set aside and revise the Judgment
dated 07.05.2021 passed by the 1st respondent / Sub-divisional
Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruppur in
M.C.No.42/2021/A1 in Perumanallur Police Station, Tiruppur in Crime
No.139 of 2021 under Section 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 506(2) of IPC.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Franklin
For Respondent : Mr.S.Sugendran
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
Page No.1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.502 of 2021
ORDER
(The case has been heard through video conference)
This Criminal Revision has been filed seeking to set aside and
revise the Judgment in M.C.No.42/2021/A1 dated 07.05.2021 passed by
the 1st respondent / Sub-divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional
Officer, Tiruppur, in Crime No.139 of 2021 on the file of the
Perumanallur Police Station, Tiruppur.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner had involved in
Crime No.111 of 2019 for the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC
and in Crime No.322 of 2019 for the offence punishable under Sections
397 read with 392 IPC. While the cases were pending, the petitioner was
asked to execute a bond under Section 109 Cr.P.C. to maintain good
behaviour. Accordingly, he executed the bond and during the pendency
of the bond, the petitioner again involved in another case and thereby, a
case in Crime No.139 of 2021 was registered against the petitioner on
08.04.2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294(b),
323, 324 and 506(2) IPC based on the complaint given by one Arunagiri.
Page No.2/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.502 of 2021
Therefore, the petitioner was issued summon by the 1st respondent based
on the recommendation of the 2nd respondent regarding initiation of
proceedings under Section 122 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. following which, the
petitioner was produced before the 1st respondent on 05.05.2021.
Subsequently, the impugned order was passed on 07.05.2021 and the
bond executed by the petitioner under Section 109 Cr.P.C. was cancelled
and the petitioner was sentenced to undergo the remaining bond period.
Challenging the said order of cancellation of bail bond, the present
revision has been filed before this Court.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that without
furnishing copies and without giving opportunity to the petitioner, the
impugned order has been passed which warrants interference of this
Court.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that
the defecto complainant during investigation has clearly stated that the
Page No.3/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.502 of 2021
petitioner had involved in the case in Crime No.139 of 2021. Since, the
petitioner breached the bond conditions by involving in the ground case
in Crime No.139 of 2021, the proceedings under Section
122(1)(b)Cr.P.C. was initiated against the petitioner and summon was
also served on the petitioner on 03.05.2021. Thereafter, the petitioner
was produced before the 1st respondent on 05.05.2021. Subsequently, the
impugned order was passed on 07.05.2021 and the bond executed by the
petitioner under Section 109 Cr.P.C. was cancelled.
5. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondents and
perused the records.
6. Perusal of records shows that the petitioner had already involved
in Crime No.111 of 2019 for the offence punishable under Section 379
IPC and in Crime No.322 of 2019 for the offence punishable under
Sections 397 read with 392 IPC. Therefore, the petitioner was asked to
execute a bond under Section 109 Cr.P.C. to maintain good behaviour.
Accordingly, he executed the bond and during the pendency of the bond,
Page No.4/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.502 of 2021
the petitioner is alleged to have involved in the ground case in Crime
No.139 of 2021. Therefore, proceedings under Section 122 (1)(b) Cr.P.C.
was initiated by the 1st respondent/Sub-divisional Magistrate and
Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruppur, and the petitioner was asked to
give his explanation. Thereafter, the petitioner was produced before the
1st respondent/Sub-divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tiruppur on 05.05.2021. Subsequently, the impugned order was passed
on 07.05.2021 and the bond executed by the petitioner under Section 109
Cr.P.C. was cancelled.
7. A careful reading of the order passed by the 1st respondent
shows that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend his case.
It is a settled proposition of law that when an accused is in custody and if
any proceedings has to be initiated by any authority, sufficient
opportunity should be given to the accused to defend his case by
engaging a counsel by himself or otherwise, the authority or the Court
concerned has to provide a Legal Aid Counsel through the Legal
Services Authority. In this case, the said procedure has not been followed
Page No.5/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.502 of 2021
by the 1st respondent which violates the constitutional rights. Therefore,
this Court is inclined to set aside the order passed by the 1st respondent
on the ground of non providing opportunity to the petitioner to defend
his case.
8. Accordingly, the order passed by the 1st respondent/Sub-
divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruppur, in
M.C.No.42/2021/A1 dated 07.05.2021 is set aside. The matter is remitted
back to the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent is directed to initiate a
fresh proceedings after serving all the copies to the petitioner and after
giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to engage a counsel on his
own. In case, if the petitioner is unable to engage a counsel, the 1st
respondent has to provide a Legal Aid Counsel through the District
Legal Services Authority and dispose the matter in accordance with law.
9. With the above observations, this Criminal Revision case is
allowed.
31.08.2021
Index : Yes/No
ksa-2
Page No.6/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.502 of 2021
To
1.Sub-divisional Magistrate and
Revenue Divisional Officer
Tiruppur
2. The Inspector of Police
Perumanallur Police Station
Tiruppur District
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
Page No.7/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.502 of 2021
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
ksa-2
Crl.R.C.No.502 of 2021
31.08.2021
Page No.8/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
