Allowed

Smt. M.Anitha Bai v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC25 Oct 2016CRLRC/2671/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision challenged a penalty order of Rs. 80,000 imposed without a hearing. The High Court held that the order violated natural justice and set it aside, directing the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders after affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 01.09.2016 in M.C.No.B/ 869/ 2016 holding the petitioner liable to pay penalty of Rs.80,000 was set aside.

Smt. M.Anitha Bai Vs The State of Telangana — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

HON’ BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY

¶2

Criminal Revision Case No.2671 of 2016

¶3

JUDGMENT:

¶4

This criminal revision case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., challenging the order dated 01.09.2016 passed in M.C.No.B/ 869/ 2016 by the Special Executive Magistrate, Hyderabad.

¶5

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents (TS).

¶6

On 01.09.2016, the Special Executive Magistrate, Hyderabad District, passed the following order.

¶7

“ Whereas on 20.05.2016 you became respondent by a bond you would be of good behaviour for a period of one year and bound yourself in default thereof to forfeit the sum of Rs.80,000/ - (Rupees eighty thousand only) to the Government and whereas if you have again committed the offence of sale of illicitly distilled country liquor in a crude and unscientific method, committed since you became such respondent, whereby your security bond has become forfeited.

¶8

You are therefore hereby required to pay the said penalty of Rs.80,000/ - (Rupees Eighty Thousnad only) or to show cause before me within (07) working days as to why the payment of the same should not be enforced against you.”

¶9

A perusal of the record clearly reveals that the learned Executive Magistrate directed the petitioner to pay penalty of Rs.80,000/ -. It is settled law that no quasi or judicial order can be passed without affording reasonable opportunity to the affected party. Passing of any order without giving reasonable opportunity to the affected party would amount to violation of principles of natural justice. Admittedly, in the instant case, the order is being passed by the Executive Magistrate, without giving any opportunity to the petitioner leave apart non-following of the procedure

¶10

¶11

contemplated under the Code of Criminal Procedure. If the order is allowed to stand, it would amount to miscarriage of justice. If there is any illegality or irregularity or impropriety in the orders passed by the lower authority, this court can set aside the same by exercising the revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C.

¶12

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 01.09.2016 passed in M.C.No.B/ 869/ 2016, is set aside and the learned Executive Magistrate is hereby directed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after affording reasonable

¶13

opportunity to the petitioner.

¶14

The criminal revision case is, accordingly, allowed. Miscellaneous
petitions, if any pending in this case, shall stand closed.
____________________
T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J
Date: 25.10.2016.
BSS

¶15

¶16

HON’ BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY

¶17

¶18

Crl.R.C. No.2671 of 2016

¶19

BSS

¶20

Date: 25.10.2016

Smt. M.Anitha Bai v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. M.Anitha Bai v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kanchi Muniprasanna Kumar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

A.v.Vijay Kumar, Vs The STate of Telangana

P.S. Chatwal Vs The State of Telengana

C.Sadanand Goud Vs The State of Telangana

Kondamudi Shyam Babu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Maduri Srinivas, Vs The State of Telangana