Malavath Neelya Naik vs The State Of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp
2022 Latest Caselaw 4108 Tel

      HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

                   CRL.R.C.No.1241 OF 2016
JUDGMENT:

This criminal revision case is directed against the

proceedings/notice in MC.No.C/514/2016 dated 07.05.2016 of the

Executive Magistrate & Tahsildar, Raikal, Karimnagar District.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor.

3. A perusal of the impugned proceedings/notice would show

that for violation of the conditions of security bond given by the

petitioner, the said bond was forfeited and he was required to pay a

penalty of Rs.1 lakh or to show cause to the said Executive

Magistrate within seven working days as to why payment should

not be enforced against him.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned

Magistrate has not conducted enquiry as contemplated under law

alleging that the petitioner had committed breach of bond thereby

committing offence punishable under the provisions of the

Prohibition Act and the said order is not sustainable in law.

He further submits that no enquiry was conducted with regard to

involvement of the petitioner in the crime and when and where the

offence occurred and the said details are not mentioned so also the

time of seven days mentioned in the notice is not a sufficient time

and without affording sufficient time to offer him explanation, the

alleged notice came to be issued.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that there is

no illegality in issuing the impugned notice by the Executive

Magistrate and the petitioner was given opportunity to show cause

within seven working days, but he failed to do so or pay the

penalty. She, therefore, prays that the revision case may be

dismissed.

6. In the instant case, the impugned proceeding/notice was

issued holding that the petitioner committed breach of the security

bond and, therefore, he is liable to pay the penalty of Rs.1 lakh or

show cause within seven working days as to why payment of the

same should not be enforced against him and why he should not

sent to imprisonment. The order does not indicate as to whether

any prior enquiry was made for ascertaining the truth about the

involvement of the petitioner in the crime. Further, the notice

also did not disclose further details with regard to the source of

information, quantity of such liquor, if any, place, date and time

of alleged offence etc. Thus, prima facie, it appears that the

proceeding/notice was issued without conducting proper enquiry

and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside, as rightly

contended by learned counsel for the petitioner.

7. In the result, the criminal revision case is allowed

setting aside the proceeding/notice in MC.No.C/514/2016 dated

07.05.2016 of the Executive Magistrate & Tahsildar, Raikal,

Karimnagar District.

8. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.

_______________________ A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J

10.08.2022 Lrkm