Criminal revision filed against a notice for forfeiture of a bond. The Single Judge allowed the revision, setting aside the impugned proceedings, citing procedural lapses and error in applying provisions regarding bonds not properly executed.
Impugned proceedings in M.C.No.23 of 2016 before the Mandal Executive Magistrate were set aside.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1529 OF 2016
ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the notice, dated 30.4.2016, issued in M.C.No.23 of 2016 by the Mandal Executive Magistrate at Kadiyam, East Godavari District.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner entered into a bond of security for good behavior for a period of one year before the Mandal Executive Magistrate on 12.2.2016 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. Subsequently, it was reported by the Station House Officer, Prohibition and Excise Station, Rajamahendravaram South, dated 30.4.2016, that the petitioner committed a similar offence. Basing on the said report, the learned Executive Magistrate, having come to the conclusion that the petitioner violated the bond, issued notice of forfeiture directing the petitioner to pay penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- i.e., the amount of bond, within 15 days or to show a cause. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed this revision.
3. Heard and perused the material available on record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Magistrate has not followed the procedure and that the provisions of Section 122 (b) Cr.P.C. can be invoked to arrest any person, who breached his bond executed under Section 117 Cr.P.C; that the petitioner has not executed any bond under Section 117 Cr.P.C., and that the learned Magistrate erred in enforcing the bond alleged to have been executed by the petitioner under Section 110 Cr.P.C.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside.
6. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed setting aside the proceedings against the petitioner in M.C.No.23 of 2016 on the file of the Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kadiyam, East Godavari District.
7. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Criminal Revision Case shall stand closed.
_________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 17.6.2016 AMD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1529 OF 2016
Date: 17.6.2016
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the proceedings for forfeiture of bond under Section 117 Cr.P.C, enforced alleging breach of Section 110 Cr.P.C bond, without executing a bond under Section 117 Cr.P.C, were lawful.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner
Prohibition and Excise Station, Rajamahendravaram South
Raja Elango
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
