Allowed

Sanjey @ Sanjey Kumar v. the State Rep by

Madras HC21 Mar 2023CRL RC/548/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the High Court of Madras set aside an order by an Executive Magistrate imposing punishment for violating a bond. The Court held the Magistrate lacked competence under prevailing Supreme Court and High Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order passed by the 1st respondent is set aside, and the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The connected criminal miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sanjey @ Sanjey Kumar Vs the State Rep by — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.R.C.No.548 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 21.03.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM

¶6

Crl.R.C.No.548 of 2023 and Crl.M.P.No.4103 of 2023

¶7

Sanjey @ Sanjey Kumar ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The State Rep by The Sub-Divisional Magistrate cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruthani, Tiruvallur District.

¶10

Inspector of Police, D-1, Tiruthani Police Station, Tiruvallur District. ... Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the conviction order imposed against the petitioner namely Sanjey @ Sanjey Kumar, M/A, 20 years, S/o.Senthilkumar in Na.Ka.2672/2022/A1 in M.C.No.84 of 2020 dated 30.08.2022 and revise the conviction period imposed till 23.06.2023 on the file of the 1st respondent herein.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Surendran

¶13

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.548 of 2023

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Challenging the order dated 30.08.2022 passed by the 1^st respondent in Na.Ka.2672/2022/A1 in M.C.No.84 of 2020, this Criminal Revision is filed by the petitioner.

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 1^st respondent passed an order, by her proceedings in Na.Ka.No.2672/2022/A1, dated 30.08.2022 under Section 122(1) (b) of Cr.P.C and after enquiry, passed an order under Section 122(1)(b) Cr.P.C and remanded the petitioner till 23.06.2023. This impugned order is unsustainable, in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 13.03.2023 in Cr.R.C.No.137 of 2018 batch cases [P.Sathish @ Sathis Kumar Vs State

¶20

Rep by The Inspector of Police, Law and Order, H-4 Korukkupet Police Station, Chennai] . Therefore, he seeks to set aside the impugned order passed by the 1^st respondent.

¶21

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the

¶22

respondents fairly conceded that the 1^st respondent is not competent authority to pass an order under Section 122(1)(b) Cr.P.C.

¶23

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

¶24

2/6

¶25

Crl.R.C.No.548 of 2023

¶26

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

¶27

5.On perusal of the records and the impugned order, it reveals that the 1^st respondent in pursuance of the complaint given by the 2^nd respondent, Inspector of Police, D-1, Tiruthani Police Station, Tiruvallur District, proceeded the 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 1^st respondent proceeded against him under Section 122(1)(b) Cr.P.C and finally ordered to remand him till 23.06.2023. The impugned order dated 30.08.2022 passed by the 1^st respondent in Na.Ka.2672/2022/A1 in M.C.No.84 of 2020, is unsustainable, in view of the order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 13.03.2023 in Cr.R.C.No.137 of 2018 batch cases

¶28

[P.Sathish @ Sathis Kumar Vs State Rep by The Inspector of Police, Law and Order, H-4 Korukkupet Police Station, Chennai] , wherein, this Court relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1982) 1 SCC 71 [ Gulam Abbas Vs State of Uttar Pradesh]. In paragraph 80 (e) of the said order dated 13.03.2023, it has been held as follows:-

¶29

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

¶30

3/6

¶31

Crl.R.C.No.548 of 2023

¶32

“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”

¶33

5.In the light of the above, the 1^st respondent is not competent authority to impose any punishment under Section 122(1)(b)Cr.P.C. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the 1^st respondent is set aside and the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶34

21.03.2023

¶35

srn

¶36

Note : Issue order copy on 23.03.2023.

¶37

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

¶38

4/6

¶39

Crl.R.C.No.548 of 2023