Madras High Court
Abdul Razzaq vs The Administrative Executive ... on 29 March, 2023
Crl.R.C.No.598 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 29.03.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
CRL.R.C.NO.598 OF 2023
Abdul Razzaq ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Administrative Executive Magistrate /
Deputy Commissioner of Police (South)
Coimbatore City.
2.The Inspector of Police
T4, Kuniamuthur Police Station (Law and Order)
Coimbatore City. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under section 397 r/w 401 of
Criminal Procedure Code to set aside the order dated 08.02.2023 in
M.P.No.04 of 2023 in Na.Ka.No.252/Admin Exe Mag/DC/South/CBE-
C/2023 passed by the Administrative Executive Magistrate & Deputy
Commissioner of Police – South, Coimbatore City, the first respondent
herein.
For Petitioner ... Mr.A.Tamilarasan
For Respondents ... Mr.R.Vinothraja
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.598 of 2023
ORDER
Challenging the order dated 08.02.2023 passed by the first
respondent under Section 122 (1)(b) of Criminal Procedure Code in
M.P.No.04 of 2023 in Na.Ka.No.252/Admin Exe Mag/DC/South/CBE-
C/2023, pursuant to the Crime No.275/2022 under Section 8(c) read with
20(b)(ii) NDPS Act and Section 294(b), 323 and 506(II) IPC dated
17.09.2022, on the file of T4, Kuniamuthur Police Station (Law & Order)
Coimbatore City and in Crime No.109/2023 under Section 8(c) read with
20(b)(ii)(a), 25 of NDPS Act and Section 328 IPC dated 23.01.2023, on
the file of Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Coimbatore City, this Criminal
Revision is filed by the petitioner.
2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
first respondent passed an order dated 08.02.2023 in M.P.No.04 of 2023
in Na.Ka.No.252/Admin Exe Mag/DC/South/CBE-C/2023, under Section
122(1)(b) Cr.P.C, pursuant to the Crime No.275/2022 under Section 8(c)
read with 20(b)(ii) NDPS Act and Section 294(b), 323 and 506(II) IPC
dated 17.09.2022, on the file of T4, Kuniamuthur Police Station (Law &
Order) Coimbatore City and pursuant to Crime No.109/2023 under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.598 of 2023
Section 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(a), 25 of NDPS Act and Section 328 IPC
dated 23.01.2023, on the file of Prohibition Enforcement Wing,
Coimbatore City and remanded the petitioner till 16.09.2023. This
impugned order is unsustainable, in view of the order of the Division
Bench of this Court in P.SATHISH @ SATHISH KUMAR AND
OTHERS VS. THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
AND OTHERS [CRL.R.C. NO.137 OF 2018 AND ETC., BATCH
CASES, DECIDED ON 13.03.2023]. Therefore, he seeks to set aside the
impugned order passed by the first respondent.
3.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
appearing for the respondents fairly conceded that the first respondent is
not the 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 first respondent, in pursuance of the complaint given by the second
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.598 of 2023
respondent, Inspector of Police, T4 Kuniamuthur Police Station (Law &
Order) Coimbatore City and the Prohibition Enforcement Wing,
Coimbatore City, has proceeded to initiate proceedings against the
petitioner under Section 110 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 first respondent proceeded against him further
under Section 122(1)(b) Cr.P.C and finally ordered to remand him till
16.09.2023. The impugned order dated 08.02.2023 passed by the first
respondent in M.P.No.04 of 2023 in Na.Ka.No.252/Admin Exe
Mag/DC/South/CBE-C/2023, under Section 122(1)(b) Cr.P.C, is
unsustainable, in view of the order of the Division Bench of this Court in
P.SATHISH @ SATHISH KUMAR CASE (cited supra) wherein, in
paragraph 80 (e), this Court, relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in GULAM ABBAS VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH] [1982) 1
SCC 71] has 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.598 of 2023
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, this Court is of the considered view
that the first respondent is not the competent authority to impose any
punishment under Section 122(1)(b)Cr.P.C. Therefore, the impugned
order passed by the first respondent is set aside and the Criminal Revision
Case is allowed.
29.03.2023
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking / Non-speaking order
Note : Issue order copy on 31.03.2023.
TK
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.598 of 2023
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
TK
To
1.The Administrative Executive Magistrate /
Deputy Commissioner of Police (South)
Coimbatore City.
2.The Inspector of Police
T4, Kuniamuthur Police Station (Law and Order)
Coimbatore City.
3.The Superintendent
Central Prison, Coimbatore.
4.The Public Prosecutor
High Court of Madras
Chennai – 600 104.
CRL.R.C.NO.598 OF 2023
29.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
