Executive Magistrate lacks jurisdiction to detain individuals for bond violations; such authority resides exclusively with Judicial Magistrates under the Code.

ORDER :

1. Heard, Mr.M.Dinesh Hari Sudarsan, learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner and Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondents.

2. This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 28.11.2025 passed by Executive Magistrate cum Tahsildar, under Section 141 of BNSS, directing imprisonment of petitioner for breach of bond executed under section 129 of BNSS.

3. At the outset, it was submitted that the impugned order may be bad for want of jurisdiction inasmuch as the Executive Magistrate may not have the jurisdiction nor authority to order imprisonment for breach of bond executed under Section 129 BNSS (110 Cr.P.C).

4. Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, would submit that issue is no longer res integra and has been conclusively settled by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of P. Sathish @ Sathish Kumar v. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police , CDJ 2023 MHC 1826, wherein several issues of law were raised and considered, including the following questions:

“(ii) Whether the Executive Magistrate concerned can exercise his power under Section 122(1) (b) for violation of bond executed under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?

(iii) Whether the power to issue G.O.Ms.No.659, Home (Csts.VIA) Department, dated 12.09.2013 and G.O.Ms.No.181, Home (Cts.VIA) Department, dated 20.02.2014 should be traced to Section 20 Sub-clause 4 and Sub-Clause 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, r/w. Sections 6 and 7 of the Madras City Police Act, 1888?”

5. While, considering the above questions, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in P.Sathish @ Sathish Kumar's case held as under:

“25. The next question is whether an Executive Magistrate has the power to impose sentence under the Code. Though the question was originally formulated in rather generic terms, during the course of arguments it was agreed that the issue can be confined to whether imprisonment for breach of a bond executed under Section 107 can be ordered by an Executive Magistrate under Section 122(1)(b). Therefore, the question is whether an Executive Magistrate has power to imprison a person under Section 122(1)(b) for violation of the conditions of the bond executed under Section 107.

26. The contention raised by the State is that Section 122(1)(b) specifically states that where an order of a Magistrate under Section 117 is proved to have been breached “such Magistrate or his successor-in-office” may order arrest and detention until the expiry of the bond period. The expression “such Magistrate” occurring in Section 122(1)(b) could only mean the Magistrate acting under Section 117 which, in the context of a proceeding under Section 107, is an Executive Magistrate. It is, thus, contended that the Code has vested powers with Executive Magistrates under Chapter VIII to authorise detention. Our attention was also drawn to the decision of the Supreme Court in Devadassan v Second Class Executive Magistrate (2022 SCC Online SC 280), wherein an order passed by the Executive Magistrate detaining a person under Section 122(1)(b) was upheld.

27. The Executive Magistrate is a creation of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 proceedings under Section 107 could be initiated by a Presidency Magistrate, District Magistrate, Sub-Divisional Magistrate or Magistrate of the First Class. The Code of 1898 did not envisage any separation of functions between the judicial and the executive branches of the State. Consequently, the executive branch as well as the judicial branch could exercise powers under Section 107 and pass orders under Section 118 (present Section 117).

28. In fact, the absence of any separation of judici