Madras High Court
Devadassan vs The Second Class Executive ... on 22 July, 2021
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 22.07.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.KRISHNAVALLI
Crl.RC(MD)No.379 of 2021
and
Crl.MP(MD)No.3829 of 2021
Devadassan : Petitioner/Detenu
Vs.
1.The Second Class Executive Magistrate/
The Tahsildar,
Office of the Second Class Executive Magistrate/
The Thasildar,
Ramanathapuram,
Ramanathapuram District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Uchipuli Police Station,
Ramanathapuram.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Madurai Central Prison,
Madurai District. : Respondents/Complainants
Prayer: Criminal Revision filed under section 397 r/w 401
of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, against the order passed by
the 1st respondent in MC No.95/2021(A3), dated 13.05.2021.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Alagumani
For Respondents : Mr.P.Kottaisamy
Counsel for State Government
(Criminal side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2
ORDER
This Criminal Revision is filed against the order passed by
the 1st respondent in MC No.95/2021(A3), dated 13.05.2021.
2.It is seen from the records that there is an allegation
against the petitioner that he was indulging several criminal
activities and in this regard, the 1st respondent passed an order on
24.02.2021 against the petitioner under section 117 r/w 110(e)
Cr.P.C and consequent to that, the petitioner has executed a bond
to maintain good behavour for a period one year and also
undertaken to pay Rs.50,000/- and also undertakes to obey the
proceedings under section 122(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. In the meanwhile, on
31.03.2021, a criminal case in Crime No.149 of 2021 for the
offence under sections 147, 148, 342, 302 IPC r/w 109, 120(B) IPC
was registered against the petitioner by the 2nd respondent police.
The petitioner was summoned to appear on 07.05.2021 and
13.05.2021 to submit his explanation. The petitioner appeared
before the 1st respondent on 07.05.2021 and gave his explanation
denying the allegation. Subsequently, the 1st respondent passed the
impugned order, dated 13.05.2021. Aggrieved over the same, the
petitioner is before this court by way of filing this criminal revision.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
3.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and
perused the materials available on record.
4.Even though various grounds were raised in the grounds
of appeal, it is mainly contended by the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner/accused that before passing the impugned order,
no reasonable opportunity was given and prays that the impugned
order passed by the 1st respondent is liable to be set aside. In
support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner relied upon the following judgments:-
(1)2015 SCC Online Mad.2417
(Karthigayan @ Pallukarthik Vs. The Sub
Divisional Magistrate-cum-Revenue Divisional
Officer, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District and
others);
2.2016 SCC Online Mad.33724
( Murali Vs. Sub Divisional Magistrate and
Assistant Collector, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar
District and another);
3.2016 SCC Online Mad.21568 (Bala
@ Balakrishnan Vs. The Administrative
Executive Magistrate-cum-Deputy
Commissioner of Police, Wooraiyur Police
Station, Trichy District);
4.2016 SCC Online Mad.23460
(Balamurugan Vs. State rep. by the Inspector
of Police, (Law and Order), Palayamkottai
Police Statin, Tirunelveli City);
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
5.2016 SCC Online Mad.9614 (Muthu @
Muthuraja Vs. State by the Executive
Magistrte-cum-Deputy Superintendent of
Police, Pulianthope District Chennai 600 012);
6.2017 SCC Online Mad.37659 (Selvam
Vs. Executive Magistrate-cum-Deputy
Commissioner of Police and another);
7.2017 SCC Online Mad.29305 (Sekar @
Jabasekar Vs. The Inspector of Police, S-14,
Peerkanakaranai Police Station, Chennai-45);
8.2019 SCC Online Mad.20285 (P.Sathish
Vs. State rep. by the Inspector of Police Law &
Order and another);
9.2019 SCC Online Mad.18400 (Ashik
Mohammed Vs. Executive Magistrate/The
Revenue Divisional Officer);
10.2020 SCC Online Mad.616 (Shanmugam
Vs. Sub Divisional Magistrate-cum-Revenue
Divisional Officer and another);
11.2020 SCC Online Mad.2706 (Devi Vs.
Executive Magistrate-cum-Deputy
Commissioner of Police and another); and
12.2020 SCC Online Mad.1902 (P.Kumar
Vs. State of Tamil Nadu represented by the
Executive Magistrate/Revenue Divisional
Officer).
5.On the other hand, on the side of the respondents, it is
argued that the 1st respondent passed the order only after giving
reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and prays for dismissal of
the criminal revision.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
6.In this case, already the 2nd respondent police issued
summons to the accused to execute a bond of Rs.50,000/- under
section 111 of the Criminal Procedure Code and accordingly, the
accused executed the bond for Rs.50,000/- and in case any breach
of conditions during that period of bond, the accused should be
imprisoned for the remaining period under section 122(1)(b) of
Cr.P.C. Further, it was brought to the notice of this court that the
accused committed breach of bond by indulging in a criminal case
in Uchipuli Police Station Crime No.149 of 2021 under sections
147, 148, 342, 302 IPC r/w 109, 120(B) IPC and he has been
arrested and remanded to judicial custody.
7.On perusal of the order passed by the 1st respondent, on
13.05.2021, it is stated that summons were sent to the accused to
appear on 07.05.2021 and 13.05.2021 and the accused was
enquired and during the enquiry, the statement of the accused was
recorded. Further, the 1st respondent stated in the order passed on
13.05.2021 that the accused has the knowledge of breach of bond
and further, the accused was questioned and for that, he replied
that he has not committed the offence. Further, the 1st respondent
in his order, dated 13.05.2021 stated that when the accused was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
produced before the concerned Magistrate, he has not stated any
complaint against the registration of the criminal case in Crime No.
149 of 2021 and on the basis of the above statement of the accused
and the records of Crime No.149 of 2021, the 1st respondent came
to the conclusion that the accused breached the bond already
executed. On careful perusal of the impugned order passed by the
1st respondent, it reveals that only after giving reasonable
opportunity to the accused, the 1st respondent passed the impugned
order, on 13.05.2021.
8.Keeping in view of the above facts, this court is of the
considered view that the order passed by the 1st respondent does
not suffer from any illegality and accordingly, it is confirmed.
9.In the result, this criminal revision fails and the same is
dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is
closed.
22.07.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
er
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
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.
To,
1.The Second Class Executive Magistrate/
The Tahsildar,
Office of the Second Class Executive Magistrate/
The Thasildar,
Ramanathapuram,
Ramanathapuram District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Uchipuli Police Station,
Ramanathapuram.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Madurai Central Prison,
Madurai District.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.KRISHNAVALLI,J
er
Crl.RC(MD)No.379 of 2021
22.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
