Madras High Court
Natarajan @ Sevittu Natarajan vs The Sub Divisional Magistrate And on 21 June, 2023
Crl.RC.No.1059 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.06.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
Crl.R.C.No.1059 of 2023 &
Crl.M.P.No.8472 of 2023
Natarajan @ Sevittu Natarajan ... Petitioner
/vs/
1. The Sub Divisional Magistrate and
Revenue Divisional Officer [FAC]
Chengalpet.
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Mamallapuram, Chengalpet. .. Respondents
Prayer : Criminal Revision Petition filed under section 397 read with 401 of
Cr.P.C., to set aside the Order dated 22.05.2023 under section 122 [1] [b]
read with 117 of Cr.P.C. in M.C.No.A1/151/2022 on the file of the first
respondent and to allow the above Criminal Revision Case.
For petitioner ... Mr.M.Illiyas
For Respondents ... Mr.R. Vinothraja, GA (crl.side)
ORDER
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.1059 of 2023
This Criminal Revision has been preferred seeking to set aside the
Order dated 22.05.2023 passed under section 122 [1] [b] read with 117 of
Cr.P.C. in in M.C.No.A1/151/2022 on the file of the first respondent and to
allow the above Criminal Revision Case.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 1st
respondent had initiated proceedings against the petitioner and made
him to execute a bond on 20.09.2022 under section 110 of C.P.C., for
maintaining good behaviour for a period of one year. Subsequently, a
case has been registered against the petitioner in Crime No.182 of
2023 for the offence under sections 4[1][a], 4[1-A] TNP Act read with
6 and 11 of RS Rules -2000. Since the petitioner violated the bond
condition, the 1st respondent, proceeded against the petitioner under
section 122(1)(b) read with 117 of Cr.P.C., and remanded the
petitioner to prison by his proceedings in M.C.No.A1/151/2022, dated
22.05.2023 to undergo imprisonment until the expiry of the period of
bond viz., 19.09.2023. He further submitted that in view of the
judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 13.03.2023 in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.1059 of 2023
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], the impugned order passed by
the 1st respondent is unsustainable, Therefore, he seeks to set aside
the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent.
3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the
respondents fairly conceded that the 1st respondent is not competent
authority to pass an order under Section 122(1)(b) read with 117
Cr.P.C.
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 initiated proceedings under section 107 Cr.P.C.,
against the petitioner and directed to him to execute a bond for keeping
good behaviour under section 110 of Cr.P.C., pursuant to which, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.1059 of 2023
petitioner executed a bond for keeping good behaviour on 20.09.2022
for a period of one year. Since the petitioner has violated the bond
executed before the Executive Magistrate, the 1st respondent proceeded
against him under Section 122(1)(b) read with 117 Cr.P.C and finally
remanded him to undergo simple imprisonment till the expiry of the
bond period viz., 19.09.2023.
6. It is relevant to note that in the order dated 13.03.2023 passed
by the Division Bench of this Court 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 21.06.2023, it
has been held as follows:-
“80 (e) In the light of the law laid down in
paragraph 24 of the three judge bench decision
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.1059 of 2023
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 1st respondent is not competent
authority to impose any punishment under Section 122(1)(b) read with
117 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the 1st
respondent is set aside and the Criminal Revision Case is allowed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
21.06.2023
vrc
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.1059 of 2023
To
1. The Sub Divisional Magistrate and
Revenue Divisional Officer [FAC]
Chengalpet.
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Mamallapuram, Chengalpet.
3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal.
4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.1059 of 2023
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
vrc
Crl.R.C.No.1059 of 2023
21.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
