Madras High Court
M.Raja @ Odukku Raja vs The State Rep By Its on 9 June, 2023
Crl.RC No.835 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 09.06.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
Crl.RC No.835 of 2023
& Crl.MP.No.6404 of 2023
M.Raja @ Odukku Raja ...
Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State rep by its,
The Sub Divisional Executive Magistrate,
and Revenue Divisional Officer, Villupuram.
2. The Superintendent,
Sub Jail, Villupuram ...
Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397(1) to
call for the records pertaining to proceedings in M.C.No.166 of
2022 dated 12.04.2023 passed by the 1st respondent to set aside
the same by allowing the revision petition.
For Petitioner : M/s.Sathiya for
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC No.835 of 2023
Mr.D.Balaji
For Respondents : Mr.R.Vinothraja,
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
This petition has been filed to set aside the order dated
12.04.2023 in M.C.No.166 of 2022 on the file of the first
respondent.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
the petitioner had executed a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- under
Section 110 of Cr.P.C for keeping peace for a period of 10
months. According to the respondent-Police, the petitioner had
violated the condition and involved in a crime. Hence, the first
respondent without passing any proceedings, has straight away
issued a warrant of commitment of failure to find security to keep
the peace under Section 122(1)(b) Cr.P.C, which is illegal and
unsustainable and it has to be aside.
3.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC No.835 of 2023
for the respondents submitted that the 1st respondent after issuing
summons to the accused has straight away issued the warrant to
keep him safely in the jail for a period of 10 months. He further
submitted that he is unable to file any proceedings passed by the
1st respondent as directed by this Court on 07.06.2023.
4.I have considered the matter in the light of submissions of
the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.
5.On perusal of the records and the impugned order, it
reveals that the 1st respondent, by his order dated 12.04.2023 in
M.C.No.166 of 2022 issued a warrant of commitment of failure
to find security to keep the peace under Section 122(1)(b) Cr.P.C.
It is noticed that the 1st respondent had not passed any
proceedings in this regard. Further, the 1st respondent without
hearing the petitioner, has straight away issued warrant, which is
unsustainable and illegal. Apart from this, the 1st respondent/The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC No.835 of 2023
Sub Divisional Executive Magistrate is not competent authority to
issue any proceedings under Section 122(1)(b) Cr.P.C, in view of
the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated
13.03.2023 in Cr.R.C.No.137 of 2018 batch cases [P.Sathish @
Sathis Kumar Vs State Rep by The Inspector of Police, Law
and Order, H-4 Korukkupet Police Station, Chennai]
6. It is relevant to note that in the common judgment passed
by a Division Bench of this Court dated 13.03.2023 in
Cr.R.C.No.137 of 2018 batch cases [P.Sathish @ Sathis Kumar
Vs State Rep by The Inspector of Police, Law and Order, H-4
Korukkupet Police Station, Chennai], wherein, this Court relied
on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in
(1982) 1 SCC 71 [Gulam Abbas Vs State of Uttar Pradesh]. In
paragraph 80 (e) of the said order dated 13.03.2023, it has been
held as follows:-
“80 (e) In the light of the law laid
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC No.835 of 2023
down in paragraph 24 of the three judge
bench decision of the Supreme Court in
Gulam Abbas Vs State of Uttar Pradesh
(1982) 1 SCC 71, an Executive Magistrate
cannot authorize imprisonment under
Section 123(1)(b) for violation of a bond
under Section 107 Cr.P.C. A person who
has violated the bond executed before the
Executive Magistrate under the said
provision will have to be challenged or
prosecuted before the Judicial Magistrate
for inquiry and punishment under Section
122(1)(b)Cr.P.C”.
7.In the light of the above, the impugned order is
unsustainable and the 1st respondent is not competent authority to
impose any punishment under Section 122(1)(b) Cr.P.C.
Therefore, the impugned order, dated 12.04.2023 passed by the 1st
respondent is set aside and the Criminal Revision Case is
allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC No.835 of 2023
09.06.2023
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
srn
To
1. The Sub Divisional Executive Magistrate,
and Revenue Divisional Officer, Villupuram.
2. The Superintendent,
Sub Jail, Villupuram
3. The Superintendent, Sub Jail, Villupuram
4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC No.835 of 2023
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
srn
Crl.RC No.835 of 2023
&
Crl.MP.No.6404 of 2023
09.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
