ORDER :

Prayer:- Criminal Revision petition is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C. to call for records pertaining to the order passed in M.C.No. 12/2022/Aa3, dated 05.05.2022, on the file of the learned II Class Executive Magistrate Cum Thasildar, Aathur Taluk, Dindigul, and set aside the same as illegal.

The Criminal Revision case is filed to call for records pertaining to the order passed in M.C.No.12/2022/Aa3, dated 05.05.2022, on the file of the learned II Class Executive Magistrate Cum Thasildar, Aathur Taluk, Dindigul, and set aside the same as illegal.

2. Originally, the petitioner executed a bond before the first respondent under Section 110(e) Cr.P.C for a period of six months. Pending the bond period, again on 28.04.2022, the petitioner involved in another case in Crime No.101 of 2022 registered for the offence under Section 8(C) r/w 20(b) II (B) NDPS Act. On the very same day, the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Thereafter, the second respondent had recommended the first respondent to initiate proceedings under Section 122 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. The first respondent without issuing any show cause notice to the petitioner and without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, mechanically passed an order on 05.05.2022 and thereby, detained the petitioner for the remaining bond period. That apart, the petitioner originally executed a bond under Section 110 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the first respondent ought not to have initiated proceedings under Section 121(b) Cr.P.C. It is relevant to see the judgment of this Court in the case of P.Sathish @ Sathish Kumar Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police reported in 2019 (2) MWN (cr.) 136, in which, this Court has held as follows:-

“1. Notice to be sent to the person by the Executive Magistrate to show cause as to why action under Section 122(1)(b) of Cr.P.C should not be taken for breach of the bond executed under Section 117 Cr.P.C on a date fixed.

2. At the enquiry, the Executive Magistrate should furnish the person the materials sought to be relied upon, including statements of witnesses, if any, in the vernacular (if the person is not knowing the language other than his mother tongue).

3. If the person wishes to engage an Advocate to represent him at the enquiry, an opportunity to have a counsel of his choice should be provided to him.

4. The Executive Magistrate shall inform the person about his right to have the assistance of a lawyer for defending him in the enquiry.

5. The enquiry shall be conducted by the Executive Magistrate on the notified date or such other date as may be fixed and the person should be allowed to participate in the same.

6. At the enquiry, an opportunity should be given to the person to: (i)Cross-examine the official witnesses, if any and (ii) produce documents and witnesses, if any, in support of his case.

7. Such Executive Magistrate or his successor in office, should then, apply his mind on the materials available on record, in the enquiry, and pass speaking order.

8. An order under Section 122(1)(b) of Cr.P.C should contain the grounds upon which the Executive Magistrate is satisfied that the person has breached the bond.

9. A copy of the order should be furnished to the person along with the materials produced at the enquiry.

10. The enquiry, as far as possible shall be completed within 30 days and at no circumstance, the enquiry shall be adjourned unnecessarily. The advocates, who appear on behalf of the persons concerned, are expected to co-operate with the enquiry process for its expeditious completion.”

The above legal principles as evolved have to be followed by all the Executive Magistrates concerned.

3. Further, in the case of Devi Vs. The Executive Magistrate and one another in Crl.R.C.No.78 of 2020, dated 25.09.2020, this Court has held as follows:-

“36. Unlike the expression “breach of the peace”, where “subjectivity” is the basis, good behaviour rests on “objectivity”. All the clauses of Section 110 Cr.P.C., except cla