Allowed

Guguloth Veeranna v. The State of Telangana and 2 Others

Telangana HC18 Mar 2024WP/39514/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging a penalty notice for breach of a good behavior bond. The Court held that mere arraignment in another offence, without an enquiry under Section 117 Cr.P.C. or recording of grounds under Section 122 Cr.P.C., cannot constitute a conviction or forfeiture. The impugned proceedings were declared unsustainable.

What did the court decide?

The impugned proceedings dated 16.06.2022 passed in M.C.No.A/202/2022 were declared unsustainable and the writ petition was allowed.

Guguloth Veeranna Vs The State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32s61

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 39514 OF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

Guguloth Veeranna, S/o. Guguloth Harisingh, Age. 46 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. H.No. 6- 131 , Nethaji Thanada, Vemnoor Village, Mahabubabad Mandal, Mahabubabad District

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Prohibihon and Excise Department, Secrelariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Executive Magistrate-cum-Tahsildar, Mahabubabad Mandal, Mahabubabad Diskict.

¶13

The Station House Officer, Prohibition and Excise Station, Mahabubabad, I\rahabubabad District

¶14

...RES'.N,ENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndra^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court^{may be} pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the 2nd respondent^issuingthe impugned Notice in M.C.No. N20212022, Dated^'16/06/2022 in directing the petitioner to pay a penalty of Rs.2,00,000/- within 3 days as illegal, arbitrary, abuse of process law, violation of^principles of natural^justice and^{contrary to law} and set the impugned Notice in M.C.No. A120212022, Dated 16/06/2022^{issued by} the 2nd respondent and consequently direct the respondents not to take^any fu(her action against the petitioner in the interest of^justice

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that^{in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the^{High Courtmay be pleased to}

¶18

/i,

¶19

''-.1 suspend the impugned Notice in M.c,No. 103t2022, Dated 06/05/2022 issued by the 2nd respondent in the interest of Justice, pending disposar of the writ petition

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI LAXMALLA SANDEEP counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 3: Gp FoR pRoHrBrroN ExcrsE Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Gp FOR REVENUE

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

THE TION'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{C.V.BHASKAR REDDY} WRIT PETITION No.39514^OF 2022

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

This writ petition has^{been filed questioning the order} passed in M.C.No.A/2O2/2022, dated^{16.06.2022 passed} by the Tahsildar and Mandal^{ExecutiveMagistrate,} Mahabubabad Mandal, Mahabubabad^{District,directing} the petitioner to^pay an^{amountof Rs.2,OO,OOO/-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 ot16.06.2022,} the petitioner has entered^{into a bond for good behavior for} a period of six months^{and bound himself in defaultthereof} to forfeit a sum of^{Rs.2,OO,OOO/- tothe Government,} u,hereas the petitioner has committed^{breach of bond by} committing an offence under^{Section34 (e) of AP Excise} Act, 1968 registered in COR^No. 153^{of2022 dated} 01 .OA.2O22 of Prohibition and Excise^Station, "- lvfahabubabad. Therefore, the Executive Magistrate,

¶26

¶27

Mahabubabad Mandal, Mahabubabad District has passed an order in M.C.No.A/202/2022, dated t6.06.2022 directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.2,OO,OOO/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 of forfeiture of bond in M.C.No.A/202/2022, no enquiry has been conducted by the Executivc Magistrate while exercising the powers under Section I 1O Cr.p.C.

¶29

It is the further contention of the learned counsel that under Section 122 (bl of Cr.P.C., if any person after having executed a bond without sureties for keeping the peace in pursuance of an order of a Magistrate under Section 117, is proved to the satisfaction oI such Magistrate or his successor-in-office, to have committed breach of the bond, such Magistrate or successor-in-office may, after recording the grounds of such proof, order that the person be arrested and detained in prison until the expiry of the period of the bond and such order shall be without

¶30

¶31

I l , I I i

¶32

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

¶33

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 u,ill not amount to breach of bond executed under Section 1 1 7 of the Cr. P.C.

¶34

When a person after having executed a bond in pursuance of an order of the Magistrate under Section 117 of Cr.P.C., in which no enquiry was conducted, 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 tor,r,ards punishment for not maintaining good behavior. Since there is no order that has been passed under Section I 17 Cr.P.C before exercising powers under Section 122 of Cr.P.C., the arraignment of the petitioner in an oflence, cannot be taken as conviction. __---

¶35

¶36

7 Accordingly, this writ petition is allou,ed declaring the impugned proceedings dated 16.06.2022 passed in M.C.No.A/202 / 2022 as unsustainable. No costs.

¶37

Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any,

¶38

pending shall stand dismissed.

¶39

SD/-N. SRIH RI ASSISTANT REGIST //TRUE COPY//

¶40

¶41

SECTION O ICER

¶42

1 The Principal Secretarv. protribition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Hydetabad, State of Telanqana

¶43

z The Executive Maoistrate-jum-Tahsildar, Mahabubabad Mandal, Mahabubabad Dislrict

¶44

3 The station House officer. prohibition and Excise station, Mahabubabad, Mahabubabad District

¶45

45 One CC to SRt LAXMALLA.gIlqEEf, Advocate topucl rwo ccs to cp FoR pRoHr-BrrbNticrsE, n*Isfi"iJurt i riYr! vv( tor the state of Telangana, atHLderabad IOUTI-

¶46

6 lwo CCs to Gp FOR REVF\UE, High Court for the State of Tetangana, at Hyderabad. [OUTI

¶47

7 Two CD Copies

¶48

PSK.

¶49

BS w

HIGH COURT

DATED:1810312024

ORDER

WP.No.39514 of 2022

?
{-r-,Ji 'rr\ f€
(
+ 1\(
t) 1 4 l'lAY 2021 o
.a+
*
t
DEri irAic

¶56

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS.

¶57

\csoL
Y^-'
;lffr

Guguloth Veeranna v. The State of Telangana and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Guguloth Veeranna 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

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

Smt. Tasneem Faiyaz Bhagat Vs The State of Telangana

Kottapally Ravi @ Ravinder Vs The State of Telangana