Pathlavath Pedda Manemma vs The State Of Telangana,
2022 Latest Caselaw 1890 Tel

         THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

                        WP No. 27966 of 2016

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the 3rd

respondent in issuing notice in MC.Nil-/2015, dt.05.08.2016,

for forfeiture of bond of Good Behavior in a sum of

Rs.1,00,000/- basing on the offence registered under Section

7(a) read with Section 8(e) of Prohibition Act, 1995, as illegal,

arbitrary, unjust, violative of Articles 14, 19 & 21 of the

Constitution of India, and consequently set aside the same.

2. None appeared for the petitioner.

3. Heard learned Government Pleader for Prohibition &

Excise appearing for respondents 1 & 2, the learned

Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for 3rd respondent,

and perused the record.

4. A perusal of the impugned proceedings, under which the

3rd respondent sought to invoke the bond of Good Behavior

executed by petitioner in a sum of Rs.1 lakh and forfeit the

amount secured thereunder, does not mention any subsequent

offence involving the petitioner or the breach committed by the

petitioner subsequent to the execution of the bond, making the

said bond invokable by forfeiting the same.

5. This Court in similar circumstances, in WP.No.4802 of

2016, by order dt. 15.02.2016, had held that mere arraignment

in an offence cannot be taken to be a conviction whereby it

could be said that the petitioner had committed a breach of the

bond furnished by him for maintaining good behaviour, for the

authorities to forfeit the amount.

6. In the present case, as noted above, no details are

mentioned in the impugned order, as to the alleged breach

committed by the petitioner, except stating that the petitioner

has committed breach of bond by committing an offence under

Section 7(a) read with 8(e) of the Prohibition Act, 1995, much

less the date, on which the petitioner has committed the said

offence.

7. Though learned Government Pleader sought to rely on the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Crl.A.No.388 of

2022, dt.09.03.2022, to sustain the impugned order of

forfeiture, it is to be seen that in the said case, subsequent to

the execution of the bond on 24.02.2021, petitioner therein was

involved in another crime, and therefore, having regard to the

facts of the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court found that

since the petitioner therein had violated the conditions of the

bond, the action of the authorities in forfeiting the amount by

invoking the bond of Good Behaviour, was found to be valid.

8. On the contrary, in the present case, as noted above, the

impugned notice does not mention either the date on which the

petitioner committed an offence or any reference is made to any

case that has been registered against the petitioner, subsequent

to the execution of the bond of Good Behavior, resulting in

breach of the said bond.

9. In view of the above, the impugned notice issued by the

3rd respondent cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.

10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the

impugned notice issued by the 3rd respondent in MC.Nil-/2015,

dt.05.08.2016, is set aside. No order as to costs.

11. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,

shall stand closed.

___________________ T. VINOD KUMAR, J

13th April, 2022.

gra