Allowed

Kamal Singh , Kawal Singh v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC7 Mar 2017CRLRC/447/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision challenged a notice for show cause issued by a Special Executive Magistrate for forfeiture of a surety bond. The court held the notice lacked material details and procedural safeguards, setting it aside and directing an inquiry with hearing opportunity while staying arrest.

What did the court decide?

Impugned notice set aside; magisterial officer directed to proceed with inquiry after hearing petitioner; petitioner not to be arrested pending inquiry.

Kamal Singh , Kawal Singh Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SEETHARAMA MURTI

¶2

Criminal Revision Case No.447 of 2017

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the proceedings/ notice, dated 15.02.2017, of the learned Special Executive Magistrate, Hyderabad District.

¶5

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

¶6

3. A perusal of the impugned proceedings/ notice would show that for violation of the conditions of the surety bond given by the petitioner, the said bond was forfeited and the petitioner was required to pay a penalty of Rs.80,000/ - or to show cause to the said Special Executive Magistrate within seven working days as to why payment should not be enforced against the petitioner.

¶7

4. As the petitioner failed to comply with the proceeding/ notice, it appears that he has been adjudged for imprisonment and steps are being initiated for his arrest and remand to prison.

¶8

Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶9

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 also submit that the time of seven days as mentioned in the notice is not a sufficient time 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

¶10

¶11

MSRM, J Crl.R.C.No.447 of 2017

¶12

the notice does not disclose any material or the basis on which it was assumed that the petitioner violated the conditions of the surety bond.

¶13

6. Learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the instant revision on the ground that there is illegality in issuing the impugned notice is not maintainable, as, in fact, there is no illegality in issuing the notice 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.

¶14

7. In the instant case, the impugned proceeding/ notice was issued holding that the petitioner committed breach of the surety bond and therefore, he is liable to pay the penalty of Rs.80,000/ - 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 of the bond are violated and that there are valid grounds for forfeiting the bond. The proceeding/ notice impugned only states that there was a violation by commission of an offence of sale of illicitly distilled country liquor, but, does not disclose any further details thereof with regard to the source of information, quantity of such liquor, if any, place, date & time of alleged offence etcetera. Thus, prima facie , it appears that the proceeding/ notice was issued without conducting proper enquiry and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.

¶15

8. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed setting aside the proceeding/ notice in MC.B/ 1010/ 2016, dated 15.02.2017, passed by the Special Executive Magistrate, Hyderabad District. And, the Special Executive Magistrate is now directed to proceed with the matter after giving an

¶16

¶17

MSRM, J Crl.R.C.No.447 of 2017

¶18

opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, however, in accordance with the procedure envisaged under law. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not be subjected to arrest and detention in the instant matter till such enquiry is completed and a speaking order is made in the matter.

¶19

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶20

_______________________ M. SEETHARAMA MURTI, J

¶21

07.03.2017

¶22

Note:- Issue CC by 08.03.2017 (B/ o) RAR

Kamal Singh , Kawal Singh v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamal Singh , Kawal Singh 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

G. Srinivasa Rao, Vs The Director General ( Personnel)

Donthireddy Venugopal Reddy Vs Smt. K.Lakshmamma (died) by LRs 2 to 4

Smt. Abdul Nazma Begum, W/o.Late Abdul Khadar, Vs The Deputy Commissioner

P.Kishore Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana

P. Gopi Vs The Depot Manager

Pathan Feroz Khan, Vs Mohammad Mirza Najma