Allowed

Smt. Banoth Chinni, Warangal Dt., v. the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Telangana HC11 Jul 2022CRLRC/629/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision under CrPC s. 397, the High Court set aside a notice imposing penalty for breach of bail bond. The Court quashed the proceedings, holding that the Magistrate failed to conduct a prior enquiry into the alleged facts. Quality: thin

What did the court decide?

Criminal revision case allowed; impugned notice dated 30.01.2016 set aside.

Smt. Banoth Chinni, Warangal Dt., Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

Bail Slip: The Petitioner / Accused was directed to be released on bail by the order of the High Court dated 18-02-2016 in Crl.R.C.M.P.No. 867 of 2016 in Crl.R.C.No. 629 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶3

AT HYDERABAD

¶4

MONDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 629 OF 2016

¶8

Crl.Revision Case Under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C. aggrieved by the Order dated 30-01-2016 in M.C. No. F/581 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the Executive Magistrate and Tahsildar, Hanamkonda, Warangal District.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Smt. Banoth Chinni, Wio. Somla, Occ Labour, R/o. Gundlasingaram Village, Hanamkonda Mandal, Warangal District. ...PETITIONERY Accused AND

¶11

The State Of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana, and for the State of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

¶12

...RESPONDENT/ Respondent

¶13

Crl.Rcmp .No.867/201 6:

¶14

Petition under section 397(1) Crpc Praying that for the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum of Criminal Revision Case the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the order dt.30/01/2016 in M.C.No. F/581 OF 2016 On the file of the court of the Execntive Magistrate and Tanshilder Hanamkonda Warangal District release the petitioner on bil pending disposal of the above Criminal Revision Case.

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. A. PRABHAKAR RAO

¶16

Counsel forthe Respondent: ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (TS)

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

THE IIONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTTIOSH REDDY

¶19

CRL.R.C.No.629 OF 2016

¶20

ORDER.

¶21

lhis criminal revision case is directe d against thc proc!'edings/notice in MC.No.F/581/2016 dated 30.01.2016 of the Erecutive Magistrate, Hanamkonda.

¶22

l. Heard leamed counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

¶23

--1. r<sup>perLrsal ol^{the impugned proceedings/notce would shou} that lirr r iolation ol'the conditions of security bond given L,y the petitioner, the said bond was forfeited and she was requircd to pay e pL'nirlt\ ol' Rs. I lakh or to show cause to the said Excr:utir c 'lagistrate rvithin scven working days as to why pal ment should not be r-nfbrced against her.

¶24

l. L-earned counsel fbr the petitioner submits that the le lrned N4aq.istrate has not conducted enquiry as contemplated under la.'i alleging that thc petitioner had committed breach ol bond th,:reb1 cornrnitting ofl-encc punishable under the pro,zisions ol' thc I)rohibition Act and the said order is not susteinabie in laq.

¶25

¶26

He furthel submits that no enquiry was conducted with regard to involvement of the petitionel in the crinte and when and rvhcre the offence occulred and the said details are not mentioned so also the time of seven days mentioned in the notice is not a sulficient time and without affording sufficient time to offer her explanation, the alleged notice came to be issued.

¶27

Leamed Assistant Public Prosecutor subrnits that thcre is no illegality in issuing the impugned notice b), thc lirecr:tive Magistrate and the petitioner was given opportunity to slror.v cause within seven working days, but he faited to do so or pav the penalty. She, therefore, prays that the revision case rnar be dismissed.

¶28

[n the instant case, the impugned proceedinr,'n,rticc \ AS issued holding that the petitioner cornmitted breach ol-thc sccuritr bond and, therefore, she is liable to pay the penaltl' of [ts. I lakh or show cause within seven working days as to rvhy pal nrcnt ol' the same should not be enforced against her and uhv shc should not sent to imprisonment. The order does not indicatc as to rr he'ther any prior enquiry was made lor ascenaining the truth about thc

¶29

¶30

involvernent of the petitioner in the crime. Furthe r, the notice also did not disclose further details with regard to the source of information, quantity of such Iiquor, if any, place, date and time ol alleged otl'ence etc. Thus, prima facie, it appears that the proceed ing/notice was issued without conducting proper enquiry and tl.reretbre, the same is liable to be set aside, AS r ightly conterrdcci by learned counsel tbr the petitioner.

¶31

l. In the result" the criminal revision case is allowed sening aside the proceed ing/not ice in MC.No.F/5ti1/2016 dated

¶32

30.0 I .10 I^(r ol'the Executive Magistrate, Hanamkon,Ja.

¶33

[)cnding miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.

¶34

¶35

SD/-A.'/.S.S.C.S'M.SARMA DEPUTY^REGISTRAR //rRUE coPY// sE:c,oN 6iircen^{' ''}

¶36

fl rn" eru"rtive^{Magistrate and Tahsildar} '^{Hanamkonda ' Warangal (with} records^{if anY)District'}

¶37

, ii?blr"ri,ti,ii'"hu""t'^{centraI Prison'waransal'. -.}

¶38

SHo Protribition 1e'citt'biaiion^{ttanamtoiaawaranoalDistrict} HvJerciad^{ror the state or}

¶39

rwo Telanqana ccs^{to Public (oUT)} ",'"J"i''tfil'iti;li'e;;;;i 5. off'ct'i;'5n-r'^{h. pnaaHAKAR RAo'Advocate[oPtlc]} 6. Two^{CD CoPies}

¶40

One Spare^CoPY

.k-

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 110712022

-f
/
A<br>$"
.-Q
N

ORDER

CRLRC.No.629 of 2016

ALI,OWN(i I HE CRL.R.C

¶49

o st0
).)/-
6

Smt. Banoth Chinni, Warangal Dt., v. the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Banoth Chinni, Warangal Dt., v. the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

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

Yogesh Karia, Mumbai and Anr. Vs Stn House Offr., R.R.Dist and 9 Others

Gaddam Srinivas Yadav, Hyderabad., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

M/S. Red Fab Pvt.Ltd , Hyd and Five Others Vs M/S. Goyal Steel Enterprises, Hyd and Another

Kallu Sreedhar Reddy, Nalgonda Dt., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Rayapuram Sharadha, Warangal Dt., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

M/S.Vil Media Pvt.Ltd., Banjara Hills and 4 Othrs., Vs State of Ap., Rep. Pp and and Anr.