Allowed

Navamani @ Nataraj v. Sub Collector Cum Divisional Magistrate

Madras HC20 Mar 2023CRL RC/513/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge set aside the order remanding the petitioner to prison under Section 122(1)(b) Cr.P.C. by the Sub-Collector, holding that the Sub-Collector lacks jurisdiction to punish for bond violation under that section. Consequently, the criminal revision was allowed.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order under Section 122(1)(b) Cr.P.C. passed by the first respondent was set aside. The criminal revision case was allowed.

Navamani @ Nataraj Vs Sub Collector Cum… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.R.C.No.513 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 20.03.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM

¶6

CRL.R.C.NO.513 OF 2023 AND CRL.M.P.NO.3969 OF 2023

Navamani

Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Sub-Collector cum Sub-Divisional Magistrate Ponneri, Thiruvallur District.

¶11

2.The State Represented by The Inspector of Police (Law & Order) F-2, Sipcot Police Station, Thiruvallur District. ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under section 397 r/w 401 of Criminal Procedure Code to set aside the order dated 22.02.2023 under Section 122 (1)(b) of Cr.P.C., in Na.Ka.No.12172/2023/B1 in F-2, Sipcot, in M.C.No.146/2022 under Section 110 of Cr.P.C., (on the file of the SubCollector cum Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ponneri Range, Thiruvallur District) to undergo Simple Imprisonment of 3 years.

¶13

For Petitioner ... Mr.A.Elumalai For Respondents ... Mr.R.Vinothraja Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

1/6

¶16

Crl.R.C.No.513 of 2023

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Challenging the order dated 22.02.2023 passed under Section 122 (1)(b) of Criminal Procedure Code in Na.Ka.No.12172/2023/B1 in F-2, Sipcot, in M.C.No.146/2022, under Section 110 of Cr.P.C., by the first respondent, this Criminal Revision is filed by the petitioner.

¶19

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the

¶20

first respondent passed an order vide Proceedings in Na.Ka.No.12172/2023/B1, dated 22.02.2023, under Section 122(1)(b) Cr.P.C and remanded the petitioner till 22.11.2025. This impugned order is unsustainable, in view of the order of the Division Bench of this Court in P.SATHISH @ SATHISH KUMAR AND OTHERS VS. THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND OTHERS [CRL.R.C. NO.137 OF 2018 AND ETC., BATCH CASES, DECIDED ON 13.03.2023]. Therefore, he seeks to set aside the impugned order passed by the first respondent.

¶21

2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

Crl.R.C.No.513 of 2023

¶23

3. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondents fairly conceded that the first respondent is not the competent authority to pass an order under Section 122(1)(b) Cr.P.C.

¶24

4. I have considered the matter in the light of submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.

¶25

5. On perusal of the records and the impugned order, it reveals that the first respondent in pursuance of the complaint given by the second respondent, Inspector of Police (Law & Order) F-2, Sipcot Police Station, Thiruvallur District, has proceeded to initiate proceedings against the petitioner under Section 110 Cr.P.C and directed to execute the bond with two sureties. Since the petitioner has violated the bond executed before the Executive Magistrate, the first respondent proceeded against him further under Section 122(1)(b) Cr.P.C and finally ordered to remand him till 22.11.2025. The impugned order dated 22.02.2023 passed under Section 122 (1)(b) of Criminal Procedure Code in Na.Ka.No.12172/2023/B1 in F-2, Sipcot, in M.C.No.146/2022, is unsustainable, in view of the order of

¶26

3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

Crl.R.C.No.513 of 2023

¶28

the Division Bench of this Court in P.SATHISH @ SATHISH KUMAR CASE (cited supra) wherein, in paragraph 80 (e), this Court, relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in GULAM ABBAS VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH] [1982) 1 SCC 71] has held as follows:

¶29

“80 (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 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”

¶30

4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

Crl.R.C.No.513 of 2023

¶32

6 .In the light of the above, this Court is of the considered

¶33

view that the first respondent is not the competent authority to impose any punishment under Section 122(1)(b)Cr.P.C. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the first respondent is set aside and the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is

¶34

closed.

¶35

20.03.2023

¶36

Internet : Yes/No Speaking / Non-speaking order Note : Issue order copy on 27.03.2023. TK

¶37

¶38

1.The Sub-Collector cum Sub-Divisional Magistrate Ponneri, Thiruvallur District.

¶39

2.The State Represented by The Inspector of Police (Law & Order) F-2, Sipcot Police Station, Thiruvallur District.

¶40