SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 11074

HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
P. VELMURUGAN, J
Sakthivel – Appellant
Versus
The Executive Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner, North Coimbatore Town – Respondent
Criminal Revision Case No.278 of 2023



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.R.Sankarasubbu
For the Respondents: Mr.S.Sugendran, Additional Public Prosecutor

The dismissal of a criminal revision petition is appropriate when the sentence has been served and no further issues remain for consideration.

Headnote:This judgment addresses the proceedings under Section 397 read with 401 of the Cr.P.C., scrutinizing the order made by the Executive Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner regarding the cancellation of a bail bond under Section 110. The Court finds that the petitioner was previously involved in another case and that the order from December 20, 2022, was duly executed. The primary issues considered were whether the cancellation of the bail bond was justified and if further comprehensive claims could arise. Ultimately, the court determined that the revision petition was rendered moot as the petitioner had completed his sentence.

O R D E R

This revision petition has been filed to set aside the order in Crl.M.P.No.8 of 2022 made in Na.Ka.No.51/Nir.Che.Nadu/ Ka.Thu.A./ (North)/Co.Ma/2022 dated 20.12.2022 passed by the Executive Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner of Police, North Coimbatore Town, Coimbatore District.

2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-Police, on instructions, submitted that, in order to keep good behaviour for a period of one year, the petitioner executed a bail bond under Section 110 Cr.P.C., on 22.08.2022. Subsequently, the petitioner was involved in another case in Crime No.509 of 2022 for the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC. After due enquiry, the first respondent, vide impugned order dated 20.12.2022, initiated proceedings under Section 122 (1) (b) of Cr.P.C and cancelled the bail bond executed under Cr.P.C., and sentenced the petitioner to undergo imprisonment for the remaining period of bond. He further submitted that now the period of sentence is over and hence, nothing survives for adjudication in this revision petition.

3. On a perusal of the entire materials, it is seen that, at the time of enquiry before the first respondent, the petitioner has stated that he did not want to examine any witness or produce any documents regarding the allegations made against him, and that the first respondent-Executive Magistrate, after considering the entire materials produced by the prosecution, cancelled the bail bond executed under Section 110 Cr.P.C., and sentenced the petitioner to undergo imprisonment for the remaining period of bond. From the submissions of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, it reveals that now the undergoing sentence by the petitioner is over and hence, nothing survives for adjudication in this revision petition.

4. In view of the above, this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. However, it is open to the petitioner to work out his remedy in the manner known to law, if he has been retained in any other case.

19.03.2025 Index: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order Neutral Case Citation : Yes / No ms To

1. The Executive Magistrate-cum-

Deputy Commissioner, North Coimbatore Town, Coimbatore District.

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

P.VELMURUGAN, J.

ms

19.03.2025

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top