Madras High Court
Arun @ Otha Ruba Arun vs The Executive Magistrate-Cum on 4 May, 2023
Crl.RC.No.858 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.05.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.R.C.No.858 of 2023
and
Crl.M.P.No.6595 of 2023
Arun @ Otha Ruba Arun ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Executive Magistrate-cum-
Deputy Commissioner of Police,
St. Thomas Munt District,
Chennai – 16.
2.State rep. by
The Inspector of Police, (Law and Order),
S-7, Madipakkam Police Station,
Chennai – 117. ... Respondents
Prayer:- Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401
Cr.P.C. to set aside the order in M.P.No.4 of 2023 in
Na.Ka.No.24/Nir.Se.Nadu.Ka.Thu.Aa,St.Thomas Mount District/2023
vide an order dated 24.02.2023 on the file of the 1 st respondent and to
allow the above Criminal Revision Case.
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.858 of 2023
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Arun Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.V.Meganathan,
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
This Revision has been filed challenging the order passed in
M.P.No.4 of 2023 in Na.Ka.No.24/Nir.Se.Nadu.Ka.Thu.Aa,St.Thomas
Mount District/2023 vide an order dated 24.02.2023 on the file of the 1st
respondent, thereby detained the petitioner for the remaining bond period
under Section 122(1)(b) of Cr.P.C.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
after executing a bond under section 110 of Cr.P.C., for maintaining
good behaviour for one year, a case has been registered against the
petitioner in Cr.No.53 of 2023 on 11.02.2023 for the offence under
sections 448, 294(b) and 506(ii) of IPC r/w. Section 3 of TNPPDL Act.
Since the petitioner violated the bond condition, based on a complaint
given by the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent, proceeded against the
petitioner and remanded the petitioner to prison by his proceedings under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.858 of 2023
section 122(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. in
Na.Ka.No.24/Nir.Se.Nadu.Ka.Thu.Aa,St.Thomas Mount District/2023
vide an order dated 24.02.2023 to undergo imprisonment until
06.02.2024.
3. He further submitted that 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], the
impugned order passed by the 1st respondent is unsustainable,
Therefore, he seeks to set aside the impugned order passed by the 1st
respondent.
4.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.
5.I have considered the matter in the light of submissions of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.858 of 2023
learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.
6.On perusal of the records and the impugned order, it reveals
that since the petitioner has violated the bond executed under Section
110 Cr.P.C, the 1st respondent proceeded against him under Section
122(1)(b) Cr.P.C and remanded him to undergo imprisonment for the
remaining period of the bond till 06.02.2024.
7. 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 down
in paragraph 24 of the three judge bench decision
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.858 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”
8.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, dated 24.02.2023 passed by the 1st
respondent is set aside and the Criminal Revision Case is allowed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
04.05.2023
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
dsa/jv
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.858 of 2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.858 of 2023
To
1. The Executive Magistrate-cum-
Deputy Commissioner of Police,
St. Thomas Munt District,
Chennai – 16.
2.The Inspector of Police, (Law and Order),
S-7, Madipakkam Police Station,
Chennai – 117.
3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.858 of 2023
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
dsa/jv
Crl.R.C.No.858 of 2023
and
Crl.M.P.No.6595 of 2023
04.05.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
