Allowed

Vankudoth Susheela v. The State of Telangana and 2 others

Telangana HC18 Mar 2024WP/2500/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a Tahsildar/Executive Magistrate's notice directing payment of Rs.2,00,000 as penalty for alleged breach of a good behaviour bond. The court held that mere arraignment in another offence cannot amount to breach of a Section 117 Cr.P.C. bond without enquiry, declared the proceedings unsustainable and allowed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Impugned notice/proceedings in M.C.No.134/2022 dated 28.07.2022 declaring bond breach and demanding Rs.2,00,000 penalty quashed as unsustainable; no costs.

Vankudoth Susheela Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others — Bail and Remand | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32s6 I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

N/|ONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH,DAY^OF TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^FOUR ^/ARCH

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{C.V.BHASKAR REODY}

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO:^{25OO OF 2023}

¶8

Between:

¶9

Vankudoth Susheela,^{W/o. Vankudoth Raju,Age.43 years, Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o'} SiaOutanOa, Andanaiapadu^{Village, Dornakal lvlandal,lvlahabubabad District'}

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telansana, Rep. by^{its Principal Secretary, Prohibitionand} Excise Department, Secretariat Buildings,^HYderabad.

¶13

The Tahsildar^and Executive t,4agistrate,^{MahabubabadMandal,} Mahabubabad District.

¶14

The Station House^{Officer, Prohibition and ExciseStation, Mahabubabad,} Mahabubabad District.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article^{226 of the constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated^{in the affidavit filed therewrth, the High court may be} pleased to issue a writ, order or Direction^{more particularlyone in the nature of} wrlt of MANDAMUS^{by declarrngthe actron of the 2ndrespondentissuing the} impugned Notice in No.^{13412022,Dated 28.07.2022 in directingthe petitionerto} pay a penalty of Rs.2,00,0001 within^{2 yearsas illegal, arbitrary, abuse of} process of law, violation of^{principlesof naturaljustice and contrary to law and set} aside the impugned^{Notice in No. 13412022,Daled28.O7.2022 issued by the 2nd} respondent and consequently^{direct the respondents not to take any further action} against the Petitioner.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶18

Petition under Section^{151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed^{in support of the petition, the'High courtmaybe pleased lo} suspend the impugned^{Noticein No.13412022,Daled 28.07.2022 issued by the} 2nd respondent.

¶19

Counsel for the^{Petitioner: M/s'LAXMALLASANDEEP}

¶20

Counsel for the^{Respondents: GP FOR PROHIBITIONEXCISE}

¶21

The Court made^{the following: ORDER}

¶22

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2SOO OF 2o23

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

This writ petition has been filed questioning the order passed in M.C.No. 13412022, dated 28.O7.2O22 passed by the Tahsildar and Mandal Executive Magistrate, Mahabubabad Mandal, Mahabubabad District, directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.2,0O,0OO/- as^penalty or show cause why the petitioner should not be sent for imprisonment until such bond expires.

¶25

Learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 has submitted that on 28.07.2022, the petitioner has entered into a bond for^good behavior for a period of six months and bound himsell in default thereof to forfeit a sum of Rs.2,0O,0O0/ to the Government, whereas tJ.e petitioner has committed breach of bond by committing an offence under Section 34^(e) of AP Excise Act, 1968 registered in COR No.146 ol 2022 dated 28.07.2022 of Prohibition and Excise Station, Mahabubabad. Therefore, the Executive Magistrate,

¶26

¶27

Mahabubabad Mandal, Mahabubabad District has passed an order in M.C.No. 134/2022, dated 28.07. 2022 directing the petitioner to pay an amouht of Rs.2,00.00o/- or show cause within 7 days for the said breach of bond.

¶28

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that except issuance of notice ot forfeiture of bond in M.C.No. 134/2o22,no enquiry has been conducted by the Executive Mag. while exercising the peu's.5 under Sectio" ,,o "..o:":ate

¶29

It is the further contention of the learned counsel that under Section 122 @) of Cr.p.C., if any person atter having executed a bond without sureties for kseptng the peace in pursuance of an order of a Magistrate under Section I 17. is proved to the satisfaction of such Magistrate or his successor_in_office, to have committed bo re acach of the bond, such Magistrate or succe"""- .,:'^.^t* sor-in-office rnay' after recording the grounds of such proof, order that the person be arrested and detained in prison unfil the expirl of the period of the bond arrd such order shall be u.ithout

prejudice to any other punishment or forfeiture to which the said person may be liable in accordance with law.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that^-the concerned Magistrate has not recorded any reasons for such proof of violation of any orders and mere arraying or implicating the petitioner in any other case in relation to an incident that occurred in relation to another incident will not amount to breach of bond executed under Section 117 of the Cr.p.C.

¶37

When a person after having executed a bond in pursuzrnce of an order of the Magistrate under Section I 17 of Cr.P.C., in which no enquiry was conducred, this Court is of the opinion that mere arraignment of offences cannot be taken into conviction whereby it is said that the petitioner had committed breach of bond, which was executed towards punishment for not maintaining good behavior. Since there is no order that has been passed under Section 117 Cr.p.C before exercising pon.ers under Section 722 of Cr.P.C., the arraignment of the petitioner in an offence, cannot be taken as conviction.

¶38

¶39

7 . Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed declaring the 1n impugned proceedings dated 28.07.2022 passed

¶40

M.C.No. 134 12022 as unsustainabld. No costs.

¶41

Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any,

¶42

pending shall stand dismissed

¶43

SDLN. SRIHARI ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

-^[.--.:-.;

SECTION^OFFICER

To,

Thc Princioal Secretary,^{State of Telangana' Prohibitionand Excise} o'."pri.""I^{s"cieiariat buildings' Hyderabad'}

¶49

2 The I ahsildar^{and .xEl;iit;; '-trlagiitrate' MahabubabadMandal'} N,4ahabubabad^District.

¶50

3 The Station^{HouseOfficer, Prohibition and Excise Station'Mahabubabad'} IVlahabubabad^District

¶51

4 15ru ct i;^"ili. ln^{ir',lAr- rn sAND E EP, Ad v-oqqle [oPtI cl} 5 rwo ccs ro Gp^{FOR pndfrieirjSirl'eibrsE-,Higncourt for the Stateof} Telangana. [OUTI

¶52

6 Two CD^CoPtes. BSK GJP {v

¶53

HIGH COURT

¶54

DATED:1810312024

¶55

: .----
, .:i r./. .: .
!,,i
..
i. 2E
i'!,'t 2fr24
, .,._
''l:,Y, -.

¶56

ORDER

¶57

WP.No.2SOO of 2023

¶58

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶59

3 5

Vankudoth Susheela v. The State of Telangana and 2 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vankudoth Susheela v. The State of Telangana and 2 others

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

Gandhari Anitha Vs The State of Telangana

Poosa Eleshwar Vs The State of Telangana

Thakur Pruthvi Raj Singh Vs The State of Telangana

Amgoth Saroja Vs The State of Telangana

Guguloth Veeranna Vs The State of Telangana and 2 Others

Smt. Tasneem Faiyaz Bhagat Vs The State of Telangana