Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench)
Indira Banerjee, J.K. Maheshwari, JJ.
Devadassan - Appellant
Versus
The Second Class Executive Magistrate, Ramanathapuram & Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 388 of 2022 (Arising Out of SLP (CRL.) No. 8438 of 2021)
Decided On : 09-03-2022
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 122(1)(b) read with Sections 111 and 117 – Breach of peace bond – Arrest and detention – From 2012 to January, 2021, eight criminal cases were registered against appellant, including of simple and grievous hurt, theft and also under Arms Act – Chapter VIII of Cr.P.C. confer powers to Executive Magistrate to take bond for maintaining security and for keeping peace and good behaviour by citizens – In present case, order was passed under Sections 111 and 117 Cr.P.C. for security – On violation, recourse, specified under Section 122 Cr.P.C. is permissible – By following procedure established by law, personal liberty of citizens can be dealt with – Bond executed by appellant has not been questioned – Order passed by respondent No. 1 is after following procedure, so prescribed and affording due opportunity to appellant – High Court has rightly affirmed said order – Orders passed by High Court and respondent No. 1 do not call for any interference – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 6, 7, 8 and 9)
Facts of the case:
Respondent No. 1 and High Court found the appellant guilty for breach of conditions of bond and punished him in exercise of power under Section 122(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The orders impugned indicate that the appellant was indulged in criminal activities, however, the respondent No. 1 after notice and affording opportunity, passed order on 24.2.2021 under Section 117 read with Section 110(e) Cr.P.C.. In compliance, the appellant executed a bond to maintain good behaviour and peace for a period of one year and also undertook to pay Rs. 50,000/- as penalty to the Government in case of breach or else face the proceedings under Section 122(1)(b) Cr.P.C. Even on execution of bond, he was found involved in an offence of commission of murder, registered by Uchipuli Police Station as Crime No. 149 of 2021 under Sections 147/148/342/302 read with 109/120(B) IPC. The respondent No. 1 vide order dated 13.5.2021 found him guilty for breach of bond however, ordered his arrest and sent him to the custody. The said order has been affirmed by the High Court, however, this appeal has been filed challenging both the orders.
Findings of Court:
In the present case, the order was passed under Sections 111 and 117 Cr.P.C. for security. On violation, recourse, specified under Section 122 Cr.P.C. is permissible. Therefore, the Legislature introduced the said Chapter conferring powers on the authorities to take action for violation of peace and tranquility in public order by the citizens of the locality, otherwise, by following the procedure as prescribed, the action may be taken by the competent authority.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
Key Points: - The appellant was found guilty of breach of bond under Section 122(1)(b) Cr.P.C. after an order passed under Sections 111 and 117 Cr.P.C. for security. (!) - Eight criminal cases were registered against the appellant from 2012 to January 2021; bond of Rs. 50,000 without surety for one year was executed under Section 117 Cr.P.C. and 110(e) Cr.P.C. as a condition of maintaining peace. (!) - On violation of the bond, an order was passed under Section 122(1)(b) Cr.P.C., arrest and custody followed; the High Court and the Trial Court’s orders were upheld. (!) (!) - The judgment reiterates that Chapter VIII Cr.P.C. confers powers on Executive Magistrates to take bond to maintain peace and security for good behaviour, and if violated, Section 122 Cr.P.C. provides recourse. (!) - The Court held that the procedures prescribed were followed and afforded due opportunity; no interference with the High Court/Respondent’s orders was warranted. (!) (!)
JUDGMENT
J.K. Maheshwari, J.
Leave granted.
2. Assailing the order dated 22.7.2021 passed in Criminal RC(MD) No. 379 of 2021 and Crl. MP (MD) No. 3829 of 2021 by the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench, confirming the order dated 13.5.2021 of the respondent No. 1 in MC No. 95 of 2021 (A3), the present appeal has been filed by the appellant.
3. The facts in brief are, the respondent No. 1 and the High Court found the appellant guilty for breach of the conditions of bond and punished him in exercise of power under Section 122(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short “Cr.P.C.”). The orders impugned indicate that the appellant was indulged in criminal activities, however, the respondent No. 1 after notice and affording opportunity, passed order on 24.2.2021 under Section 117 read with Section 110(e) Cr.P.C.. In compliance, the appellant executed a bond to maintain good behaviour and peace for a period of one year and also undertook to pay Rs. 50,000/as penalty to the Government in case of breach or else face the proceedings under Section 122(1)(b) Cr.P.C. Even on execution of bond, he was found involved in an offence of commission of murder, registered by Uchipuli Police Station as Crime No. 149 of 2021 under Sections 147/148/342/302 read with 109/120(B) IPC. The respondent No. 1 vide order dated 13.5.2021 found him guilty for breach of bond however, ordered his arrest and sent him to the custody. The said order has been affirmed by the High Court, however, this appeal has been filed challenging both the orders.
4. Shri A. Lakshminarayanan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has strenuously urged that the orders passed by the administrative authorities usually do not follow the procedure prescribed and afford reasonable opportunity. The High Court of Delhi in the case of Aldanish vs. State of NCT of Delhi 2018 SCC online Del 12207 issued the guidelines to impart training to these officers. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of Madras High Court in the case of Devi vs. Executive Magistrate (Mad HC) 2020 SCC online Mad 2706, wherein the High Court taking a different view from the previous judgment directed to place the matter before Hon’ble the Chief Justice for constituting the Division Bench to hear the similar issue. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Prem Chand vs. Union of India (1981) 1 SCC 639 specifying the manner, in which the police personnel must act upon, but the personal liberty cannot be put into peril on their mercy. Further, placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Gopalanachari vs. State of Kerala 1980 (Supp) SCC 649, learned counsel emphasized the importance of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and its significance. In view of the said submissions, imposition of conditions in the bond without due enquiry and affording reasonable opportunity is wholly unjustified, and appellant cannot be held guilty and may be sent to the custody unceremoniously.
5. On the other hand, Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., learned counsel representing the respondents contends that eight criminal cases were pending against the appellant, therefore bond of good behaviour was taken in exercise of the power under Section 117 Cr.P.C. asking security. On violation of the said bond, by virtue of the powers conferred under Section 122(1)(b) Cr.P.C., the order impugned has rightly been passed. It is urged that Chapter VIII of Cr.P.C. confer powers to the Executive Magistrate for taking bond to keep the peace and security for good behaviour from the suspected persons. Appellant gave the undertaking on breach of conditions of bond due to which he may be dealt with as per Section 122(1)(b) Cr.P.C. Later, appellant was found involved in an offence of commission of murder, however a show cause notice was issued fixing date for appearance on 7.5.2021. In the reply filed by appellant, execution of the bond has not been disputed and making him accused in a murder case has also not
SupremeToday
By following procedure established by law, personal liberty of citizens can be dealt with.
The court established that detention under Section 122(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C is not applicable to bonds executed for maintaining good behaviour, only for keeping the peace.
The importance of principles of natural justice, opportunity of hearing, and application of mind by the Magistrate before passing the detention order.
The importance of following natural justice principles, providing opportunity for hearing and engaging counsel, and recording satisfaction based on materials produced before passing a detention order....
Forfeiture of peace bond – Scope and nature of Section 107 Cr.P.C. is preventive and not punitive – Magistrate cannot alter purpose of provisions from preventive to punitive by imposing heavy quantum....
Proceedings under sections 107 to 110 Cr.P.C are judicial in nature, the bar under the proviso to section 6 of the District Police Act, 1859 disentitles the the khaki personnel from exercising judici....
The first respondent cannot authorize imprisonment under Section 122(1)(b) Cr.P.C. for violation of bond under Section 110 Cr.P.C.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
