Madras High Court
Manikandan @ Melbowmani vs State Rep. By on 20 December, 2022
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.1219 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 20.12.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.1219 of 2022
Manikandan @ Melbowmani ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.State rep. by
The Sub-Divisional Magistrate/
The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Thanjavur District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Tamil University Police Station,
Vallam Circle,
Vallam Sub Division,
Thanjavur District.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Tiruchirappalli. ... Respondents
PRAYER: This Civil Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 r/w 401 of
the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records connected with the
order passed by the 1st respondent in M.C.No.291/2022/A3 order, dated
18.11.2022 against the petitioner namely Manikandan @ Melbowmani, S/o
Arumugam, Male aged about 23 years, who is detained at Central Prison,
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.1219 of 2022
Trichy and set aside the same as illegal.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.M.Karunanithi
For Respondents : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the order passed
by the first respondent in M.C.No.291/2022/A3, dated 18.11.2022.
2.The proceedings has been initiated under Section 122 (1)(b)Cr.P.C.,
stating that this petitioner is involved in illegal transporting of Ganja.
Reading of the order shows that there is complete non-application of mind.
It has been stated that on 18.11.2022 the above said order has been passed
only based on the FIR in Crime No.683 of 2022 on the file of the second
respondent registered for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148,
294(b), 341, 342, 307 of IPC and no enquiry was undertaken as
contemplated under Section 122 (1)(b) of Cr.P.C.
3.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) appearing for the
respondent submitted that the procedure has been followed properly.
According to the learned Government Advocate (Crl. side), the petitioner
was summoned and enquired on 16.11.2022 and sufficient opportunity was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.1219 of 2022
given to him. Though the petitioner has executed sureties before the first
respondent, he again involved in criminal offences. Therefore, the impugned
order has been passed by the first respondent.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the first
respondent has not given any notice to the petitioner. Even though
subsequent happenings are there, the procedure has not been properly
followed. For that purpose, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied
upon a decision of this Court in P.Sathish @ Sathish Kumar Vs. State
represented by the Inspector of Police, reported in 2019 (2) MWN (Cr.)
136 and the relevant passages are extracted herein.
“1.Notice to be sent to the person by the Executive
Magistrate to show cause as to why action under Section
122(1)(b) of Cr.P.C should not be taken for breach of the bond
executed under Section 117 Cr.P.C on a date fixed.
2.At the enquiry, the Executive Magistrate should furnish
the person the materials sought to be relied upon, including
statements of witnesses, if any, in the vernacular (if the person
is not knowing the language other than his mother tongue).
3.If the person wishes to engage an Advocate to
represent him at the enquiry, an opportunity to have a counsel
of his choice should be provided to him.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.1219 of 2022
4.The Executive Magistrate shall inform the person
about his right to have the assistance of a lawyer for defending
him in the enquiry.
5.The enquiry shall be conducted by the Executive
Magistrate on the notified date or such other date as may be
fixed and the person should be allowed to participate in the
same.
6.At the enquiry, an opportunity should be given to the
person to :(i) Cross-examine the official witnesses, if any and
(ii) produce documents and witnesses, if any, in support of his
case.
7.Such Executive Magistrate or his successor in office,
should then, apply his mind on the materials available on
record, in the enquiry, and pass speaking order.
8.An order under Section 122(1)(b) of Cr.P.C should
contain the grounds upon which the Executive Magistrate is
satisfied that the person has breached the bond.
9.A copy of the order should be furnished to the person
along with the materials produced at the enquiry.
10.The enquiry, as far as possible shall be completed
within 30 days and at no circumstances, the enquiry shall be
adjourned unnecessarily. The advocates, who appear on behalf
of the persons concerned, are expected to co-operate with the
enquiry process for its expeditious completion.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.1219 of 2022
5.In view of the above, this petition is liable to be allowed and
accordingly, allowed and the order passed by the first respondent in
M.C.No.291/2022/A3, dated 18.11.2022, is hereby set aside. However,
liberty is granted to the respondent herein to initiate fresh action, if so
required, by following the procedure that has been set out in the above said
Judgment. He may be released from the prison, if not required in any other
case.
20.12.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
TM
To
1.The Sub-Divisional Magistrate/The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thanjavur District.
2.The Inspector of Police, Tamil University Police Station,
Vallam Circle, Vallam Sub Division, Thanjavur District.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.1219 of 2022
G.ILANGOVAN,J.
TM
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.1219 of 2022
20.12.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
