Madras High Court
Ponnangan vs The Ii Class Executive Magistrate ... on 12 November, 2021
Crl. R.C.(MD)No.814 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 12.11.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. THARANI
Crl. R.C.(MD)No.814 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.9563 and 9564 of 2021
Ponnangan .. Petitioner
Vs.
State rep. by
1.The II Class Executive Magistrate Cum Tahsildhar,
Dindigul West.
2.The Inspector of Police
Rettiyarchathram Police Station,
Dindigul District.
Lir.No.28 of 2021.
3.The Jailor, District Prison,
Dindigul. .. Respondents
Prayer : This Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 r/w. Section 401 of
Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to the order of the first respondent by
his proceedings in M.C.No.66/2021/A5 dated 24.09.2021 and set aside the
same as illegal and allow the above Criminal Revision Petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Jegadeesh Pandian
For Respondents : Mr.K.Sanjay Gandhi
Government Advocate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
Crl. R.C.(MD)No.814 of 2021
ORDER
This Criminal Revision has been filed to set aside the order passed
by the first respondent in M.C.No.66/2021/A5, dated 24.09.2021
2. The second respondent registered a case against the petitioner
under Section 110(e) of Cr.P.C in L.I.R. No.28 of 2021 and produced the
petitioner before the first respondent. The petitioner executed a bond to
maintain good behavior for a period of six months ie. from 22.07.2021 to
21.01.2022. Subsequently, on 19.09.2021, the petitioner involved in another
criminal offence in Crime No.572 of 2021, under Section 20(b) (ii)(B), 8 (c) of
NDPS Act. The second respondent requested the first respondent to take
proceeding under Section 122 (1) (b) of Cr.P.C. and thereafter, the first
respondent passed the impugned order on 24.09.2021, in M.C.No.66/2021/A5.
Against the impugned order, the petitioner has approached this Court by way
of this Revision.
3. On the side of the petitioner, it is stated that an opportunity was
not given to the petitioner to engage a Lawyer. No legal Aid assistant was
given to the petitioner as per Article 21 of the Constitution of India. No
opportunity was given to the petitioner to cross examine the witnesses and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. R.C.(MD)No.814 of 2021
order was passed on the same date of enquiry. No preliminary order under
Section 111 of Cr.P.C. was passed by the first respondent. Without complying
the procedures under Sections 111 and 112 of Cr.P.C., the impugned order
was passed. The second respondent has no jurisdiction to register a criminal
case under Section 110 (e) of Cr.P.C. The provision of law can be invoked
only by an Executive Magistrate. The first respondent has not recorded his
satisfaction under Section 110(g) and 116(4) of Cr.P.C., in the impugned
order. Without conducting enquiry and without recording the evidence, the
first respondent has passed the order and prayed the impugned order to be set
aside.
4. On the side of the petitioner, it is further stated that in similar
cases, this Court has set aside the impugned order. A Judgment of this Court
reported in 201-2-M.L.J. Crl.556 (P.Sathish @ Sathish Kumar V. State rep. by
the Inspector of Police) is cited.
5. On the side of the prosecution, it is stated that the petitioner has
executed a bond on 22.07.2021 and has violated the bond condition on
19.09.2021 by his involvement in Crime No. 572 of 2021, under Section 20(b)
(ii)(B), 8 (c) of NDPS Act. The petitioner is having 17 previous cases. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. R.C.(MD)No.814 of 2021
first respondent examined one witness and he has perused four documents,
before passing the order and prayed the Revision to be dismissed.
6. A list of the previous cases against the petitioner was furnished by
the prosecution. Out of the 17 cases, 10 cases were already disposed of.
8 cases are pending. 2 cases are pending, for taken on file. The petitioner is
having 20 previous cases. The impugned order is not specific whether copies
were furnished to the petitioner; whether opportunity was given to the
petitioner to cross examine the witnesses and whether assistance of advocate
was permitted by the first respondent.
7. In view of the same, the impugned order, passed by the first
respondent in M.C.No.66/2021/A5, dated 24.09.2021, is hereby set aside.
The first respondent is at liberty to conduct enquiry afresh and pass any
suitable orders as per law. The above said exercise shall be completed within a
period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
8. With the above direction, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
12.11.2021
Ls
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. R.C.(MD)No.814 of 2021
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 II Class Executive Magistrate Cum Tahsildhar,
Dindigul West.
2.The Inspector of Police
Rettiyarchathram Police Station,
Dindigul District.
Lir.No.28 of 2021.
3.The Jailor, District Prison,
Dindigul.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. R.C.(MD)No.814 of 2021
R.THARANI, J.
Ls
Crl. R.C.(MD)No.814 of 2021
12.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
