Allowed

Banoth Manghti v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC2 Jun 2017CRLRC/1404/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court set aside an order/notice for forfeiting the petitioner's bond and demanding payment without conducting an enquiry, holding such procedure violated the requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure and natural justice.

What did the court decide?

The order/notice dated 31.03.2017 is set aside; petitioner granted liberty forthwith subject to necessary detention in other cases.

Banoth Manghti Vs The State of Telangana — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE M.SEETHARAMA MURTI CRI MI NAL REVI SI ON CASE No.1404 of 2017

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

Challenging the order/notice, dated 31.03.2017, in MC.No.179/2017, of the Executive Magistrate at Narsampet, this Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 & 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed.

¶4

I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State of Telangana representing the respondent. I have perused the material record.

¶5

By the order/notice impugned, the Executive Magistrate, while forfeiting the bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- furnished by the petitioneraccused, required her to pay the penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- or show cause within seven days as to why the said sum should not be paid and cause production of the surety before the said authority.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused mainly contends that the said notice was issued without conducting any enquiry as contemplated under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and, therefore, the said order is illegal and unsustainable.

¶7

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the revision case stating that there is no illegality in passing/issuing the order/notice under challenge.

¶8

A plain consideration of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, particularly, Sections 107 to 122 make it manifest that an opportunity shall be given to the petitioner-accused to explain her case before any order/notice like the impugned order/notice is passed/issued. A plain reading of the impugned order/notice indicates that the said

¶9

MSRM, J CRLRC No.1404 of 2017

¶10

¶11

order/notice came to be passed/issued holding inter alia that the petitioner committed breach of the bond by committing an offence under Section 7(a) read with 8(e) of the A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 & Section 3(e) of the A.P.Excise Act, 1968, and as such the bond is forfeited and the petitioner is required to pay the penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- or show cause within seven (07) days as to why the said amount shall not be paid. Ex facie, no enquiry was conducted and the order/notice came to be passed/issued without conducting any enquiry. The impugned order/notice also does not indicate that an opportunity has been given to the petitioner before the said order/notice was passed/issued. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that the order/notice impugned is liable to be set aside.

¶12

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the order/notice, dated 31.03.2017, in MC.No.179/2017 of the Executive Magistrate at Narsampet, is set aside reserving liberty to the said authority to proceed in the matter and pass appropriate orders in strict accordance with the procedure established by law after hearing the petitioner/aggrieved person. As a sequel to these orders, the petitioner shall be set at liberty forthwith provided his detention is not necessary in any other case.

¶13

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶14

_________________ M.Seetharama Murti, J

¶15

02.06.2017 Note:- Furnish C.C. today (B/O) Vjl

Banoth Manghti v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Banoth Manghti 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

The Depot Manager, Apsrtc., Vs K.N. Mahalaxmi D/o Venkataramana Murthy

S. Uppalaiah Vs Apsrtc, Rep by its Divisional Manager

Smt. K.Nirmala Rani, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

M/S. Siri Minerals Vs M/s, Ranganadh Trade Impex Pvt. Ltd.

Bhogi Subrahmanyam , Bhogi Vs The State of Telangana

Bhogi Subrahmanyam , Bhogi Vs The State of Telangana