Madras High Court
Narendiran @ Nandhu vs The Executive Magistrate Cum ... on 28 March, 2023
Crl.R.C.No.572 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28.03.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
Crl.R.C.No.572 of 2023
and Crl.M.P.No.4278 of 2023
Narendiran @ Nandhu ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Executive Magistrate cum Deputy
Commissioner,
Kilpauk District, Chennai.
2. The Inspector of Police,
G-2, Periyamet Police Station,
Chennai ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 r/w Section
401 Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to the order passed in
M.P.No.06 of 2023 in R.C.No.350/Sec.Pro/DCP/Kilpauk/2022 dated
21.02.2023 by the 1st respondent and set aside the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Saranraj
For Respondents : Mr.R.Vinothraja
Government Advocate, (Crl.Side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
Crl.R.C.No.572 of 2023
ORDER
Challenging the order dated 21.02.2023 passed by the 1st respondent
in M.P.No.06 of 2023 in R.C.No.350/Sec.Pro/DCP/Kilpauk/2022, this
Criminal Revision is filed by the petitioner.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 1st
respondent passed an order, by his proceedings in M.P.No.06 of 2023 in
R.C.No.350/Sec.Pro/DCP/Kilpauk/2022 dated 21.02.2023 under Section
122(1) (b) Cr.P.C and after enquiry, passed an order under Section
122(1)(b) Cr.P.C and remanded the petitioner to undergo imprisonment
for a period of 213 days. This impugned order is unsustainable, 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]. Therefore, he seeks to set aside the impugned order
passed by the 1st respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.572 of 2023
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) 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 in pursuance of the complaint given by the 2nd
respondent, Inspector of Police, G-2, Periyamet Police Station, Chennai
proceeded the proceedings against the petitioner under Section 107
Cr.P.C and directed to execute the bond with two sureties. Since the
petitioner has violated the bond executed before the Executive Magistrate,
the 1st respondent proceeded against him under Section 122(1)(b) Cr.P.C
and finally ordered to remand him to undergo imprisonment for a period
of 213 days. The impugned order dated 21.02.2023 passed by the 1st
respondent in M.P.No.06 of 2023 in
R.C.No.350/Sec.Pro/DCP/Kilpauk/2022, is unsustainable, in view of the
order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 13.03.2023 in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.572 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], 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 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”
6.In the light of the above, the 1st respondent is not competent
authority to impose any punishment under Section 122(1)(b)Cr.P.C.
Therefore, the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent is set aside and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.572 of 2023
the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
28.03.2023
srn
To
1. The Executive Magistrate cum Deputy Commissioner,
Kilpauk District, Chennai.
2. The Inspector of Police,
G-2, Periyamet Police Station,
Chennai
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Puzhal-I, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.572 of 2023
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
srn
Crl.R.C.No.572 of 2023
and
Crl.M.P.No.4278 of 2023
28.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
