Madras High Court
Selvam vs The Second Class Administrative ... on 27 October, 2022
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.934 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 27.10.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.934 of 2022
in
Cr.MP(MD)No.11537 of 2022
Selvam .. Petitioner/Respondent
Vs.
1.The Second Class Administrative Magistrate and
Revenue Thasildar,
Uthamapalayam,
Theni District.
2.The State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Gudalur South Police Station,
Theni District.
(LIR No.53 of 2022)
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
District Prison, Theni. ... Respondents/Complainant
PRAYER: This Civil Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 r/w 401 of
the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to the 1st
respondent in proceeding in Na.Ka.No.6357/2022/A8, dated 07.07.2022,
and set aside the same as illegal.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Rameshkumar
For Respondents : Mr.S.Manikandan
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.934 of 2022
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case has been filed seeking quashment of the
order passed by the Second Class Administrative Magistrate and
Revenue Thasildar, Uthamapalayam, Theni District, in Na.Ka.No.
6357/2022/A8, dated 07.07.2022.
2.The proceedings under Section 122(1)(b) has been initiated against
the petitioner, for violation of bond executed under Section 110 Cr.P.C.
Reading of the order shows that there is complete non-application of mind.
It has been stated that on 05.07.2022, summon was issued to the petitioner
and on 07.07.2022, this order has been passed by the first respondent, which
is not reasonable and proper. According to the learned counsel for the
petitioner, before passing the above said order, no enquiry was undertaken
as contemplated under Section 122(1)(b) of Cr.P.C.
3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondent submitted that the procedure has been followed properly.
According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, sufficient
opportunities were given to him. Though the petitioner has executed sureties
before the first respondent, in violation of his own bond, the impugned
order has been passed by the first respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.934 of 2022
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that 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.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.934 of 2022
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.”
5.In view of the above, this petition is liable to be allowed and
accordingly, allowed and the order passed by the 1st respondent/the Second
Class Administrative Magistrate and Revenue Thasildar, Uthamapalayam,
Theni District, in Na.Ka.No.6357/2022/A8, dated 07.07.2022, is hereby
quashed. However, liberty is granted to the respondent herein to initiate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.934 of 2022
fresh action, if so required, by following the procedure that has been set out
in the above said Judgment. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
27.10.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
dss
To
1.The Second Class Administrative Magistrate and Revenue Thasildar,
Uthamapalayam, Theni District,
2.The Second Class Administrative Magistrate and
Revenue Thasildar,
Uthamapalayam,
Theni District.
3.The State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Gudalur South Police Station,
Theni District.
(LIR No.53 of 2022)
4.The Superintendent of Prison,
District Prison,
Theni.
5.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.934 of 2022
G.ILANGOVAN,J.
dss
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.934 of 2022
27.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
