Arunkumar vs State Represented By
2022 Latest Caselaw 18203 Mad

                                  BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                  DATED: 15/12/2022

                                                         CORAM:

                                         THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN

                                              Crl.RC(MD)No.1224 of 2022

                 Arunkumar                                        : Petitioner/A1


                                                          Vs.
                 State represented by
                 The Inspector of Police,
                 District Crime Branch,
                 Thanjavur District.
                 (Crime No.2 of 2022)                             : Respondent/Complainant

Prayer: Criminal Revision is filed under Sections

397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the

records pertaining to the impugned order passed in Cr.M.P

No.5076 of 2022, dated 30/11/2022 on the file of the

Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thanjavur and modify the

condition No.2 and pass such further or other orders.

                                        For Petitioner       : Mr.A.Arun Prasad

                                        For Respondent       : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar
                                                               Government Advocate
                                                               (Criminal side)

                                        For Intervenor       : Mr.M.Karunanithi

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

O R D E R

The criminal revision has been preferred against

the condition imposed by the trial court, by which, the

revision petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of

Rs.10,00,000/- to the credit of the crime No.2 of 2002

before the concerned court.

2.The above said order was passed in pursuance of

the petition that was filed under section 167(2) of Cr.P.C,

which is a statutory bail provision.

3.Now the grievance of the revision petitioner is

that while enlarging the revision petition on statutory

bail, no such onerous condition can be imposed.

4.Imposing such sort of condition, according to the

learned counsel appearing for the intervenor/de-facto

complainant is nothing, but interlocutory order and against

which, no revision will lie under section 397(2) Cr.P.C. It

is also further submitted that against the condition that

has been imposed by the trial court, if at all the revision

petitioner can file a petition under section 439(1)(b)

Cr.P.C. and the revision petitioner can invoke only the

above said provision or a petition under section 482

Cr.P.C.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

5.The learned counsel appearing for the revision

petitioner would rely upon the judgment of this court,

dated 23/11/2018 made in Crl.RC No.784 of 2014 (N.Kumar and

another Vs. Mukundchand Bothra and another) for the purpose

of argument that even if a petition has been filed under

section 397 Cr.P.C r/w 401 Cr.P.C, the same can be treated

as 482 Cr.P.C to do substantial justice, when illegality or

irregularity or error is apparent on the face of the

record. But this Bench has no roster to pass orders by

converting this as petition under section 482 Cr.P.C

6.No doubt that against the interlocutory order,

revision will not lie and there is a clear bar under

section 397(2) Cr.P.C. So the judgment relied upon by the

de-facto complainant need not be taken into account.

7.No doubt that there is condition upon the

revision petitioner to deposit Rs.10,00,000/-, while

exercising power under section 167(2) Cr.P.C is not legal.

8.So the Registry is directed to convert this

revision as petition under section 439 Cr.P.C. and list the

same before the roster Judge, on 16/12/2022 for

consideration.

15/12/2022 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No er

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

G.ILANGOVAN, J

er

Crl.RC(MD)No.1224 of 2022

15/12/2022

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis