Madras High Court
Koolu @ Kalidoss vs The Tahsildar And on 13 June, 2025
CRL RC(MD)No.556 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 13.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
CRL RC(MD)No.556 of 2025
Koolu @ Kalidoss ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Tahsildar and
Executive Magistrate,
Avudaiyarkovil Taluk,
Pudukottai District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Avudaiyarkovil Police Station,
Pudukottai District. ...Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 438 r/w 442
of BNSS, to call for the records pertaining to the order of the 1st
respondent passed in M.C.No. 02/2025/A9 dated 28.03.2025 and set
aside the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar
For Respondent : Mr.S.Ravi,
Additional Public Prosecutor
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 12:09:46 pm )
CRL RC(MD)No.556 of 2025
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case is filed assailing the order of
preventive detention dated 24th January 2025 passed by the first
respondent in M.C. No. 2/2025/A9 , seeking to set aside the order by
which the petitioner has been kept in custody up to 24 July 2025 in
Central Prison , Trichy— as being without jurisdiction and in violation
of the procedure established by law.
2. Factual Matrix:
2.1.On 28 March 2025 the first respondent, purporting to act
under Section 141 BNSS (pari materia Section 122(1)(b) CrPC), issued
an order directing the detention of the petitioner on the allegation that
he had breached a bond for good behaviour.
2.2.The order is founded upon: (a) a recommendation of the
second respondent police, (b) statements of unnamed witnesses, and (c)
a revenue-officials’ enquiry report.
2.3.No copy of those materials was furnished to the petitioner
either before or during the enquiry.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 12:09:46 pm )
2.4.The “notice” relied on by the Executive Magistrate was served
when the petitioner was already in custody; it merely informed him of
the result, not the grounds, thereby denying a meaningful opportunity
of defence.
2.5.Consequently, the petitioner was detained on 24 July 2025,
and continued to remain in custody by virtue of the impugned order, till
the same was suspended by the order of this court dated30.04.2025.
3. Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner:
3.1.Impugned order is ultra vires Section 141 BNSS because the
Magistrate recorded neither any specific grounds nor his subjective
satisfaction.
3.2.Mandatory safeguards laid down in P. Sathish @ Sathish
Kumar v. State (2019 (2) MWN (Cr.) 136) and reiterated in Selvam @
Selvaraj (CDJ 2017 MHC 4350) have been ignored—chiefly, supply of
relied-upon documents, right to counsel, and right of cross-
examination.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 12:09:46 pm )
3.3.The proceeding, though before an Executive Magistrate, is
judicial in character (Bibhuti Bhusan Chatterjee v. State of Bihar, AIR
1960 SC 128); violation of principles of natural justice vitiates it ab
initio.
4. Submissions on behalf of the State:
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.S.Ravi fairly
conceded that the impugned order has go following the mandates of the
Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Crl.R.C.No.137 of 2018 etc.,
cases.
5. Points for Consideration:
5.1.Whether the first respondent followed the mandatory
procedure under Sections 110–117 CrPC and Section 141 BNSS before
ordering detention.
5.2.Whether denial of basic procedural safeguards amounts to
absence of jurisdiction, rendering the order liable to be set aside.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 12:09:46 pm )
6. Discussion:
6.1. Nature of Proceedings:
Chapter VIII proceedings, though executive in form, are judicial in
substance as mandated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bibhuti Bhusan
Chatterjee case. Personal liberty, a facet of Article 21, cannot be
curtailed save by “procedure established by law” which must be just,
fair and reasonable in terms of the judgment of the Hobble Supreme
Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India1.
6.2. Statutory Mandate:
Section 141 (2) BNSS obliges the Executive Magistrate to:
“(a) record in writing the grounds of his satisfaction, and
(b) furnish to the person the substance of those grounds and the
material relied on, enabling him to show cause.”
The impugned order contains only a recital that “materials have
been perused” without narrating what those materials are, how they
establish breach, or why preventive detention—an extreme measure—
was indispensable.
1(1978) 1 SCC 248
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 12:09:46 pm )
6.3. Violation of Natural Justice:
The ten-point guidelines in P. Sathish case (accepted by this
Court as binding on all Executive Magistrates) require supply of
documents, right to legal representation, and an opportunity of cross-
examination. The record is silent on compliance. Service of a bare notice
upon a person already incarcerated is, at best, post-decisional
information and at worst, a farce.
6.4. Settled Proposition of Law:
The lis in hand is no more res integra and the same is covered by
the judgment of the Hon'be Division Bench of this Court in Crl.R.C.Nos.
137 of 2018 etc., batch in P.Sathish case dated 13.03.2023 and the
relevant portion of the same is extracted as follows:
“88. ....(c) Violation of a bond executed under Section 110
of the Cr.P.C., can be dealt with under Section 446 of the Code
and not under Section 122(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. Consequently, we
affirm the judgment of Mr. Justice P.N Prakash in Devi v
Executive Magistrate (2020 6 CTC 157) in its entirety. The
decision of the learned single judge to the contrary in Vadivel @
Mettai Vadivel v The State (Crl.R.C.No. 982 of 2018 etc.,
batch) will stand overruled.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 12:09:46 pm )
(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 v State of Uttar Pradesh (1982) 1 SCC 71, an
Executive Magistrate cannot authorize imprisonment under
Section 122(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
challaned or prosecuted before the Judicial Magistrate for
inquiry and punishment under Section 122(1)(b) Cr.P.C.”
6.5. Consequences of Non-Compliance:
Failure to observe mandatory safeguards strikes at the root of
jurisdiction .The impugned order, passed mechanically and without
recorded reasons, is void and not merely voidable.
7. Conclusion:
Fully fortified by the judgment extracted supra, the order dated
24 January 2025 in M.C. No. 2/2025/A9 suffers from illegality,
procedural irregularity, and violation of natural justice. It cannot stand
judicial scrutiny.
8. In Final,
(i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 12:09:46 pm )
(ii) The impugned detention order dated 24 January 2025 passed
by the Tahsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate, Avudaiyarkovil Taluk, is set
aside.
(iii) Liberty is reserved to the respondents to initiate fresh
proceedings, if warranted, strictly in conformity with Chapter VIII
CrPC / Section 141 BNSS and the guidelines in Crl.R.C.(MD)No.137 of
2018 batch, and allied judgments. No costs.
13.06.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
Sml
To
1.The Tahsildar and
Executive Magistrate,
Avudaiyarkovil Taluk,
Pudukottai District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Avudaiyarkovil Police Station,
Pudukottai District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 12:09:46 pm )
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.,
Sml
13.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 12:09:46 pm )
