2011 (2) LW(Crl) 320
High Court of Judicature at Madras
P.R. SHIVAKUMAR
S. Rajanikanth
Versus
C. Thirumagal learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate
Crl.O.P.No.4003 of 2008
Decided on : 27-06-2011
Question when 2 days time expired - HELD, even assuming 24 hrs will be reckoned as a day, 2 days period would expire only on 10-30 a.m. on 09.02.2008 - Contention of respondent that 09.02.2008 was holiday, too that it was time up on 08.02.2009 itself - Contention rejected as absurd - In such cases time shall stand extended upto next working day of court - Respondent held for passing order in hurried manner even without waiting for expiry of time granted in show cause notice. Requirement of Section 345(1) regarding giving reamble opportunity to show cause, flouted by court - Principle of audi alteram partems, not followed - Impugned order set aside - Proceedings quashed.
B. GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1897 - SECTION 9 & 10 - See Cr. P.C. Section 345(1).
Result: Crl. O.P. allowed.
1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to call for the records connected to the order dated 08.02.2008 of the learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.209 of 2008 on the file of the said court, set aside the same and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble may deem fit.
2. The brief facts and circumstances under which the petition invoking the inherent powers of the High Court came to be filed are as follows:
i) Two persons by names Thoufeek and Vetriveerapandian were arrested as a preventive measure by the Sub Inspector of Police, B2-Esplanade Police Station, Chennai on 12.01.2008 under Section 151 Cr.P.C r/w Section 7(1) (a) Criminal Law Amendment Act after registering a case in Crime No.19/2008 on the file of the said police station in view of the proposed visit of Thiru.Narendira Modi, Hon'ble Chief Minister of Gujarat on 14.01.2008. They were produced before the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai on 13.01.2008 and were remanded to judicial custody by the said Metropolitan Magistrate. The Gujarat Chief Minister came to Chennai on 14.01.2008 and returned safely on the very same day. Due to intervening pongal holidays, no bail application was moved till 21.01.2008. On 21.01.2008 a bail application was filed before the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai as Crl.M.P.No.146/2008 in Crime No.19/2008 of B2 Esplanade Police Station. The learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai adjourned the bail application to 24.01.2008. Hence a Criminal Original Petition in Crl.O.P.No.1257 of 2008 was filed on the file of this court, seeking a direction to the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai to dispose of the bail application immediately. A learned single judge of this court (Hon'ble Mr.Justice M.Jeyapal) passed an order on 22.01.2008 directing the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai to advance the hearing of the bail petition in Crl.M.P.No.146/2008 to 23.01.2008 and dispose of the same in accordance with law on the very same day. Pursuant to the said order of this court, the learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate advanced the hearing of the bail petition Crl.M.P.No.146/2008 to 23.01.2008 from 24.01.2008. After hearing, the learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate passed an order on 23.01.2008 dismissing the said petition. Pursuant to the dismissal of the said bail petition, a bail petition was moved before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.709/2008. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, after hearing, passed an order on 25.01.2008 allowing the said petition and granting bail in the above said case with certain conditions. Thiruvalargal Sankarasubbu and Rajanikanth (the petitioner herein) and Ms.S.Sengodi were the counsel for the above said Thoufeek and Vetriveerapandian before the Principal Sessions Judge in the bail petition. After getting a copy of the order of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ms.S.Sengodi, one of the counsel on record for the accused persons in Crime No.19/2008 of B2 Esplanade Police Station, presented the same along with surety papers to the learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai on 28.01.2008.
ii) The respondent herein, who was the then VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town refused to take up the matter for verification of surety papers and insisted upon the presence of the petitioner Rajanikanth, who was also a counsel on record for the said accused persons. As the surety papers were not scrutinized till 4.30 p.m, the petitioner Rajani Kanth, after winding up his work in the High Court, went to the court of the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai. Before that there was some altercation between Ms.S.Sengodi, advocate and the respondent herein as the said advocate alleged that the respondent used disrespectful and unparliamentary words against petitioner Rajani Kanth. On the arrival of the petitioner in the court of the VII M
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.