Allowed

Banoth Prabakar, v. The state of Telangana

Telangana HC12 Jun 2017CRLRC/1509/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Revision Case challenged a notice for bond forfeiture and subsequent arrest. The court allowed the revision, setting aside the notice for lack of enquiry and holding the magistrate to follow due process before impounding the bond, directing immediate release if no other detention applies.

What did the court decide?

The proceeding/notice was set aside; the Executive Magistrate directed to proceed after giving an opportunity of hearing; the petitioner directed to be set at liberty forthwith pending enquiry.

Banoth Prabakar, Vs The state of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE M.SEETHARAMA MURTI CRI MI NAL REVI SI ON CASE No.1509 of 2017

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘the Code’, for brevity) is directed against the proceeding/notice, dated 05.05.2017, of the learned Executive Magistrate, Danthalapalli Mandal, Mahabubabad District.

¶4

2. I have heard the submissions of Sri Gopal Narkuti, learned counsel for the petitioner, and of the learned Public Prosecutor, State of Telangana. I have perused the material record.

¶5

3. A perusal of the impugned proceeding/notice would show that for violation of the conditions of the good behaviour bond given by the petitioner, the said bond was forfeited and the petitioner was required to pay a penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- or to show cause to the said Executive Magistrate within seven working days, as to why the payment should not be enforced against the petitioner.

¶6

4. As the petitioner failed to comply with the proceeding/notice, he has been adjudged for imprisonment and steps were initiated for his arrest and he was arrested and was lodged in prison. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶7

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that no enquiry as contemplated under law was conducted either before issuing the show cause notice/proceeding or after the alleged violation on the part of the petitioner to comply with the proceeding/show cause notice. He would

¶8

MSRM, J CRLRC No.1509 of 2017

¶9

¶10

also submit that the time of seven days as mentioned in the notice is not a sufficient time considering the financial status of the petitioner and that no sufficient opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to offer his explanation or to pay the huge and unreasonable penalty demanded in the notice and that the notice does not disclose any material or the basis on which it was assumed that the petitioner violated the conditions of the bond. He would also submit that at the time of arrest of the petitioner and before lodging him in prison, the legal requirements were not followed and that the whole exercise is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Indian Constitution.

¶11

6. Learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the instant revision on the ground that there is illegality in issuing the impugned notice/proceeding is not maintainable, as, in-fact, there is no illegality in issuing the notice/proceeding under challenge and that the petitioner was given an opportunity to show cause within seven working days, but, he failed either to show any cause or pay the penalty demanded and that, therefore, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶12

7. In the instant case, the impugned proceeding/notice was issued holding that the petitioner has committed an offence under Section 7(A) read with 8(e) of the Prohibition Act, and has committed breach of the bond and therefore, he is liable to pay the penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- or show cause within seven working days as to why payment of the same should not be enforced against him. The order does not indicate specifically anything as to any prior enquiry has been made for ascertaining the truth and for formulating an opinion that the conditions

¶13

MSRM, J CRLRC No.1509 of 2017

¶14

¶15

of the bond are violated and that there are valid grounds for forfeiting the bond and proceeding further in the matter. The proceeding/notice impugned only states that there was a violation by commission of an offence, but, does not disclose any further details thereof with regard to the source of information, quantity of contraband, if any, place, date & time of the alleged offence etcetera. Thus, prima facie, it appears that the proceeding/notice was issued without conducting proper enquiry and without following the procedure established by law and that therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.

¶16

8. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed setting aside the proceeding/notice in MC.No.B/39/2017, dated 05.05.2017, passed by the Executive Magistrate, Danthalapally Mandal, Mahabubabad District, and, the Executive Magistrate is now directed to proceed with the matter after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, however, in accordance with the procedure envisaged under law. It is made clear that the petitioner shall be set at liberty forthwith if his detention/confinement is not required in any other case and that he shall not be subjected to detention in the instant matter till such enquiry is completed and a speaking order is made in the matter.

¶17

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶18

___________________ M.SEETHARAMA MURTI , J

¶19

12^th June, 2017

¶20

Note:Furnish C.C. by 13.06.2017. (B/O) Bvv

Banoth Prabakar, v. The state of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Banoth Prabakar, 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

Vallabhapurapu Swarajya Lakshmi Vs Vallabhapurapu jeji Babaiah , jeji Babu

Vallala Ganesh, Vs The State of Telangana

Pathipati Kanthamma, Vs The High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad

Shilpa Tippani Vs State of Telangana

Kannali Mohan Reddy Chittoor Dt and 14 Otrs. Vs the State of Ap. Rep Pp.

G.Harikiran Kumar Vs G.L.Sravanti