(Prayer: Criminal Revision case filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., against the order passed by the learned Executive Magistrate and Deputy Commissioner of Police (Law and Order, Crime and Traffic, Tiruppur City, Tiruppur District in C.No. 09/DC/L and O/Cr and Tr/TPC/16 dated 21.04.2016 in directing the petitioner herein to undergo simple imprisonment in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai till 03.02.2017 for violation of Bond for Good conduct as per Section 122(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C.)
1. The Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order passed by the learned Executive Magistrate and Deputy Commissioner of Police (Law and Order, Crime and Traffic, Tiruppur City, Tiruppur District in C.No. 09/DC/L and O/Cr and Tr/TPC/16 dated 21.04.2016 directing the petitioner herein to undergo simple imprisonment in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai till 03.02.2017 for violation of the bond for good conduct as per Section 122(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the learned Executive Magistrate has failed to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 1(11) Cr.P.C., and issued a show cause notice to the petitioner by initiating proceedings under Section 110 Cr.P.C.
3. The learned Magistrate without verification of the documents and the materials, passed the impugned order. Hence, the order of the Executive Magistrate is liable to be set aside. Since the Magistrate ought to have come to a conclusion that the respondent police have taken vengeance upon the petitioner, the trial Court ought to have dismissed the application. In view of the above circumstances, the order of the trial Court is to be set aside and the revision is liable to be allowed.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) mainly contended that the learned Executive Magistrate after analysing the entire facts and circumstances of the case, passed an appropriate order and there is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the trial Court. Hence the order of the trial Court has to be confirmed and the revision has to be dismissed.
5. The present revision is preferred against the order passed by the Executive Magistrate on 21.04.2016 directing the revision petitioner's undertaking till 03.03.2017 as per the bond executed by him. On the side of the revision petitioner, it is not denied that the proceedings of the Executive Magistrate directed to execute the bond.
6. Paragraph 1 of the impugned of reads as follows:-
( Tamil )
7. The learned Executive Magistrate specifically stated that after following the procedure of Cr.P.C., he has taken steps and directed the revision petitioner to execute a bond, as he had admitted his charges.
8. From the reading of the above said order, the present Executive Magistrate after following the procedure, directed the revision petitioner to execute the bond and the bond was also executed by the revision petitioner along with two sureties. As per order of the Executive Magistrate, the revision petitioner executed the bond. After the execution of the bond, the revision petitioner was involved in the offence in Cr.No. 335 of 2016 dated 17.04.2016 under Sections 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC, immediately a show cause notice was issued on 20.04.2016 to appear before the Executive Magistrate, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Law and Order, Tiruppur City on 21.04.2016 at 10.00 a.m. The Executive Magistrate, on 20.04.2016 directed to appear the revision petitioner before him on 21.04.2016 and the revision petitioner has denied the offence and he was questioned about the conditions for execution of the bond and denied the charges subsequently.
9. It is admitted by the respondent that at that time the revision petitioner was in judicial custody. Hence, notice was received by the Superintendent of Police, Sub Jail, Tiruppur only on 21.04.2016. He was questioned by the Magistrate on 21.04.2016 and he was immediately ordered to be detained in prison. He denied the offence. At that time, he specifically stated that he denied the offence, but the learned Executive Magistrate considering the above, as if the accused has admitted the offence, has passed the following order:-
( Tamil )
10. In view of the above, the Executive Magistrate has failed to look into the answer given by the accused that he has denied the charges. The learned Executive Magistrate failed to consider the above facts and without application of mind, passed the erroneous order as if the accused admitted the offence. Hence, the revision petitioner has clearly proved that the Executive Magistrate without application of mind, passed the erroneous order which is liable to be set aside.
11. Accordingly, in the above circumstances, the order of the Executive Magistrate passed is set aside and the Criminal Revision Case is allowed.