Madras High Court
S.Murugan @ Mattu Pice Murugan vs The Taluk Magistrate And ... on 25 May, 2023
Crl.RC.No.896 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.05.2023
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
Crl.RC.No.896 of 2023
S.Murugan @ Mattu Pice Murugan ... Petitioner
Versus
1.The Taluk Magistrate and Tahsildar,
Perur,
Coimbatore District.
2.The State Rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Vadavalli Police Station,
Coimbatore District
(Cr.No.74 of 2023) ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Revision has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure to set aside the order of conviction of the
petitioner passed by the 1st Respondent in Na.Ka.No.79/2023/A2 dated
29.03.2023.
For Petitioner : Mr.W.Camyles Gandhi
For Respondents : Mr.V.J.Priyadarsana
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)\
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.896 of 2023
ORDER
This criminal revision is directed as against the order dated
29.03.2023 passed by the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.79/2023/A2, thereby
detained the petitioner for the remaining bond period.
2. The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody in
Na.Ka.No.79/2023/A2. In pursuant to the same, he was directed to execute
bond for a period of one year under Section 110 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, he
executed bond for a period of one year under Section 110 of Cr.P.C. on
26.10.2022. While pending the said bond period, he again involved in crime
No.74 of 2023 registered for the offences under Sections 294(b), 324,
506(ii) IPC on 20.03.2023. In pursuant to the registration of FIR, again he
was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Since the petitioner involved
in another case while pending bond period, he was issued show cause notice
to initiate proceedings under Section 122(1)(b) of Cr.P.C.
3. On 29.03.2023, when he was produced before the Executive
Magistrate on PT warrant, he was given opportunity to submit his
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.896 of 2023
explanation for the show cause notice dated 24.03.2023 and he was directed
to submit his explanation. After examination of the prosecution witnesses,
the first respondent detained him for the remaining bond period by the
impugned order dated 29.03.2023.
4. Heard, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Government Advocate(crl.side) appearing for the respondents.
5. Admittedly, the first respondent initiated proceedings under
Section 122(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. It is relevant to extract the provisions under
Section 122(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. hereunder:
122. Imprisonment in default of security.—
(1) (b) If any person after having executed a [bond,
with or without sureties] without sureties for keeping the
peace in pursuance of an order of a Magistrate under
section 117, is proved, to the satisfaction of such Magistrate
or his successor-in-office, to have committed breach of the
bond, such Magistrate or successor-in-office may, after
recording the grounds of such proof, order that the person
be arrested and detained in prison until the expiry of the
period of the bond and such order shall be without
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.896 of 2023
prejudice to any other punishment or forfeiture to which the
said person may be liable in accordance with law.”
Thus, it is clear that if any person having been executed bond for keeping
peace in pursuance of an order under Section 117 of Cr.P.C. and violated
the condition till the expiry of bond period, the first respondent can very
well initiate proceedings under Section 122(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. on the strength
of the report from the police personnel concerned.
6. In the case on hand, admittedly the petitioner executed bond
under Section 110 of Cr.P.C as security for his good behaviour for a period
of one year. Therefore, the first respondent has no jurisdiction to initiate
proceedings under Section 122(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. when the accused executed
bond under Section 110 Cr.P.C. In this regard, it is relevant to reply upon
the judgment in the case of Devi Vs. The Executive Magistrate and one
another in Crl.R.C.No.78 of 2020, dated 25.09.2020, wherein this Court
has held as follows:-
“36.Unlike the expression “breach of the peace”,
where “subjectivity” is the basis, good behaviour rests on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.896 of 2023
“objectivity”. All the clauses of Section 110 Cr.P.C.,
except clause (g), underpin the existence of a previous
case. In fact, they use the expression “habit / habitual”
which is conspicuously missing in clause (g). Such a
requirement is not there under Section 107 Cr.P.C.
Section 110(e) Cr.P.C. which contemplates offences
committed habitually involving breach of the peace cannot
be used as a window to enter into Section 122(1)(b)
Cr.P.C., for the simple reason that, Section 122 (1) (b)
Cr.P.C. is predicated on the nature of the bond, viz., bond
for breach of the peace and not on clause (e) of Section
110 Cr.P.C. Thus, textually and contextually, a bond for
good behaviour can, by no stretch of imagination, be
telescoped into Section 122(1)(b) Cr.P.C.
37. In Anoop Singh Vs. State of Punjab, a learned
Single judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court has
held that imprisonment under Section 122(1)(b) Cr.P.C.,
was not contemplated for the breach of a good behaviour
bond under Section 110 Cr.P.C.
38. There is yet another reason as to why the
Parliament did not include breach of a good behaviour
bond in Section 122(1)(b) Cr.P.C., Section 120 Cr.P.C.,
states what amounts to breach of a bond. It states that
commission or attempt to commit or the abetment of any
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.896 of 2023
offence punishable with imprisonment, would amount to
breach of a bond for food behaviour. This means that the
person will have to face a regular trial in a criminal
Court for the act which gave rise to the brach of the bond
for good behaviour. If a good behaviour bond is included
in Section 122(1)(b) Cr.P.C., there is every likelihood of
the person being imprisoned twice, viz., one for breach of
the bond and the other for the commission or the attempt
to commit the substantive offence. Supposing such a
person is imprisoned for the breach of bond, but is
acquitted for the criminal act which gave rise to the
breach of bond, the imprisonment suffered by him cannot
be compensated. That is why, the Legislature had thought
it fit to mulct a person who commits breach of good
behaviour bond only with civil liability, viz., forfeiture of
the bond amount and not imprisonment.”
7. In view of the above, this criminal revision is allowed and the
order dated 29.03.2023 passed by the first respondent in
Na.Ka.No.79/2023/A2 is set aside.
25.05.2023
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non speaking order
Anu
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.896 of 2023
To
1.The Taluk Magistrate and Tahsildar,
Perur,
Coimbatore District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Vadavalli Police Station,
Coimbatore District
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.896 of 2023
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.
Anu
Crl.RC.No.896 of 2023
25.05.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
