Madras High Court
Malar @ Malarkodi vs The Sub-Divisional Magistrate – Cum on 31 October, 2002
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 31/10/2002
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE MALAI.SUBRAMANIAN
Crl.R.C.No.1791 of 2002
and Crl.R.C.Nos.1792, 1835 to 1846 1853, 1855 to 1858,
1871, 1893, 1905, 1907, 1916 1919, 1923 to 1925 ,1934 and
1943 to 1948 of 2002
&
All Connected Pending Crl.M.Ps.
Crl.R.C.No.1791 of 2002:
Malar @ Malarkodi .... Petitioner
-Vs-
The Sub-Divisional Magistrate – cum
Revenue Divisional Officer,
Udayarpalayam Taluk
Perambalur District. .... Respondent
Crl.R.C.No.1792 of 2002:
Tmt. Valli .... Petitioners
Vs.
The Sub-Divisional Magistrate – cum
Revenue Divisional Officer,
Udayarpalayam Taluk
Perambalur District. .... Respondent
Crl.R.C.No.1835 of 2002:
Thambusamy .... Petitioner
Vs.
Sub-Divisional Magistrate – cum
R.D.O., Udayarpalayam,
Perambalur District. .... Respondent
Crl.R.C.No.1836 of 2002:
M. Ramalingam .... Petitioner
Vs.
Sub-Divisional Magistrate – cum
R.D.O., Perambalur .... Respondent
Crl.R.C.No.1837 of 2002:
Mrs. Mariyayi .... Petitioner
Vs.
Sub-Divisional Magistrate – cum
R.D.O., Ariyalur, Perambalur Dist. .... Respondent
Crl.R.C.No.1838 of 2002:
Mrs. Mathalaimary .... Petitioner
Vs.
Sub-Divisional Magistrate – cum
R.D.O., Ariyalur, Perambalur Dist. .... Respondent
Crl.R.C.No.1839 of 2002:
Mrs. Crazy Mary .... Petitioner
Vs.
Sub-Divisional Magistrate – cum
R.D.O., Ariyalur, Perambalur Dist. .... Respondent
Crl.R.C.No.1840 of 2002:
Mrs. Arputham .... Petitioner
Vs.
Sub-Divisional Magistrate – cum
R.D.O., Ariyalur, Perambalur Dist. .... Respondent
Crl.R.C.No.1841 of 2002:
Adimoolam .... Petitioner
Vs.
Sub-Divisional Magistrate – cum
R.D.O., Ariyalur, Perambalur Dist. .... Respondent
Crl.R.C.No.1842 of 2002:
Thomas .... Petitioner
Vs.
Sub-Divisional Magistrate – cum
R.D.O., Ariyalur, Perambalur Dist. .... Respondent
Crl.R.C.No.1843 of 2002:
Settu .... Petitioner
Vs.
Sub-Divisional Magistrate – cum
R.D.O., Ariyalur, Perambalur Dist. .... Respondent
Crl.R.C.No.1844 of 2002:
Shekar .... Petitioner
Vs.
Sub-Divisional Magistrate – cum
R.D.O., Udayarpalayam,
Perambalur District. .... Respondent
Crl.R.C.No.1845 of 2002:
Mrs. Amudah .... Petitioner
Vs.
Sub-Divisional Magistrate – cum
R.D.O., Udayarpalayam,
Perambalur District. .... Respondent
Crl.R.C.No.1846 of 2002:
Marimuthu .... Petitioner
Vs.
Sub-Divisional Magistrate – cum
R.D.O., Udayarpalayam,
Perambalur District. .... Respondent
Crl.R.C.No.1853 of 2002:
Thamilarasan .... Petitioner
Vs.
The Sub-Divisional Magistrate – cum
R.D.O., Udayarpalayam,
Perambalur District. .... Respondent
Crl.R.C.No.1855 of 2002:
Mrs. Chinnaponnu .... Petitioner
Vs.
Sub-Divisional Magistrate – cum
R.D.O., Udayarpalayam,
Perambalur District. .... Respondent
Crl.R.C.No.1856 of 2002:
Jeeva .... Petitioner
Vs.
Sub-Divisional Magistrate – cum
R.D.O., Ariyalur,
Perambalur District. .... Respondent
Crl.R.C.No.1857 of 2002:
Rathinam .... Petitioner
Vs.
The Sub-Divisional Magistrate – cum
R.D.O., Udayarpalayam Taluk,
Perambalur District. .... Respondent
Crl.R.C.No.1858 of 2002:
Tmt. Akilandam .... Petitioner
Vs.
The Sub-Divisional Magistrate – cum
R.D.O., Udayarpalayam Taluk,
Perambalur District. .... Respondent
Crl.R.C.No.1871 of 2002:
Soundara Pandian .... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate – cum
R.D.O., Perambalur,
Perambalur District.
2. State: Inspector of Police,
Perambalur P.S., .... Respondents
Crl.R.C.No.1893 of 2002:
Murugan .... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate – cum
R.D.O., Udayarpalayam Sub-Division,
Perambalur District.
2. Inspector of Police
T.Pazhur Police Station,
Perambalur District. .... Respondents
Crl.R.C.No.1905 of 2002:
Uliyan .... Petitioner
Vs.
The Sub-Divisional Magistrate – cum
R.D.O., Udayarpalayam Taluk,
Perambalur District. .... Respondent
Crl.R.C.No.1907 of 2002:
Gopal .... Petitioner
Vs.
The Sub-Divisional Magistrate – cum
R.D.O., Udayarpalayam Taluk,
Perambalur District. .... Respondent
Crl.R.C.No.1916 of 2002:
C. Muruganandan .... Petitioner
Vs.
The Sub-Divisional Magistrate – cum
R.D.O., Ariyalur ,
Perambalur District. .... Respondent
Crl.R.c.No.1919 of 2002:
Mrs. Selvi .... Petitioner
Vs.
The Sub-Divisional Magistrate – cum
R.D.O., Perambalur. .... Respondent
Crl.R.C.No.1923 of 2002:
Viswanathan .... Petitioner
Vs.
The Sub-Divisional Magistrate – cum
R.D.O.,
Perambalur . .... Respondent
Crl.R.C.No.1924 of 2002:
Selvaraj .... Petitioner
Vs.
The Sub-Divisional Magistrate – cum
R.D.O., Udayarpalayam Taluk,
Perambalur District. .... Respondent
Crl.R.C.No.1925 of 2002:
Tmt. Anjammal .... Petitioner
Vs.
The Sub-Divisional Magistrate – cum
R.D.O., Udayarpalayam,
Perambalur District .... Respondent
Crl.R.C.No.1934 of 2002:
Alaguvel .... Petitioner
Vs.
The Sub-Divisional Magistrate – cum
R.D.O.,
Perambalur. .... Respondent
Crl.R.C.No.1943 of 2002:
Murugan .... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate – cum
R.D.O., Ottur, Perambalur Division
Perambalur District.
2. The Inspector of Police,
V. Kalathur Police Station,
Perambalur District. .... Respondents
Crl.R.C.No.1944 of 2002:
Ayyamperumal .... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate – cum
R.D.O., Udayarpalayam Sub-Division,
Perambalur District.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Thalavoi Police Station,
Perambalur District. .... Respondents
Crl.R.C.No.1945 of 2002:
Selvam .... Petitioner
Vs.
The Sub-Divisional Magistrate – cum
R.D.O.,
Perambalur District. .... Respondent
Crl.R.C.No.1946 of 2002:
Mrs. Senthamarai .... Petitioner
Vs.
The Sub-Divisional Magistrate – cum
R.D.O., Udayarpalayam,
Perambalur District. .... Respondent
Crl.R.C.No.1947 of 2002:
Thangarasu .... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate – cum
R.D.O., Perambalur Division,
Perambalur District.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Mangalamedu Police Station,
Perambalur District. .... Respondent
Crl.R.C.No.1948 of 2002:
Venkatachalam .... Petitioner
Vs.
The Sub-Divisional Magistrate – cum
R.D.O.,
Perambalur District. .... Respondent
Criminal Revision Petitions filed against the orders passed by the
Sub-Divisional Magistrate – Cum – Revenue Divisional Officer, Udayarpalayam,
Perambalur District and Ariyalur Perambalur District in Crl.M.P.No.148 of 2002
dated 23.08.2002, Crl.M.P.No.117 of 2002 dated 01.10 .2002, Crl.M.P.No.162 of
2002 dated 13.09.2002, Crl.M.P.No.13 of 2002 dated 15.07.2002, Crl.M.P.No.100
of 2002 dated 23.09.2002, Crl.M.P. No.101 of 2002 dated 18.09.2002,
Crl.M.P.No.102 of 2002 dated 18.09.20 02, Crl.M.P.No.103 of 2002 dated
18.09.2002, Crl.M.P.No.105 of 2002 dated 16.09.2002, Crl.M.P.No.107 of 2002
dated 17.09.2002, Crl.M.P.No.108 of 2002 dated 17.09.2002, Crl.M.P.No.155 of
2002 dated 13.09.2002 , Crl.M.P.No.181 of 2002 dated 25.09.2002,
Crl.M.P.No.180 of 2002 dated 13.09.2002, Crl.M.P.No.189 of 2002 dated
19.09.2002, Crl.M.P.No.12 0 of 2002 dated 07.10.2002, Crl.M.P.No.170 of 2002
dated 19.09.2002, Crl.M.P.No.172 of 2002 dated 25.09.2002, Ku.Va.Pa.No.79 of
2002 dated 27.09.2002, Ku.Va.Pa.No.173 of 2002 dated 17.09.2002,
Crl.M.P.No.171 of 2002 dated 19.09.2002, Crl.M.P.No.175 of 2002 dated
17.09.2002, Crl.M.P.No.119 of 2002 dated 17.10.2002, Crl.M.P.No.8 of 2002
dated 10 .09.2002, Crl.M.P.No.21 of 2002 dated 28.09.2002, Crl.M.P.No.183 of 2
002 dated 25.09.2002, Crl.M.P.No.176 of 2002 dated 17.09.2002, Crl.M.P.No.37
of 2002 dated 22.10.2002, Crl.M.P.No.22 of 2002 dated 20.08.2 002,
Ku.Va.Pa.No.185 of 2002 dated 19.09.2002, Crl.M.P.No.32 of 2002 dated
07.10.2002, Crl.M.P.No.193 of 2002 dated 23.09.2002, Crl.M.P. No.40 of 2002
dated 05.09.2002, Crl.M.P.No.34 of 2002 dated 07.10.2002
!For Petitioners : Mr. V. Illanchezhian -Crl.R.C.1791,1792,
1853,1857,1858,1905, 1924/02
Mr. G.R. Swaminathan – Crl.R.C.185,1856,
1856, 1907,1916,1919, 1923,1945,
1946,1835 to 1846 of 2002
Mr. K. Manivasakam -Crl.R.C.1871/02
Mr. K. Balu – Crl.R.C.1893, 1944/02
Mr. G. Pugazhenthi – Crl.R.C.1925/02
Mr. S. Kamadevan – Crl.R.C.No.1934/02
Mr. D. Veerasekaran – Crl.R.C.1943,1947
Mr. R. Sankarasubbu – Crl.R.C.1948/02
^For Respondents : Mr. I. Subramanian, P.P.
:O R D E R
These series of petitions have been filed by way of revision against the orders passed by the respective Sub-Divisional Magistrate – cum – Revenue Divisional Officer.
2. In all these matters, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has passed orders under Section 110 of the Criminal Procedure Code directing the petitioners to execute a bond for good behaviour for a specified period. It was found that after executing the bond, these petitioners started indulging in committing prohibition offences. Therefore, the Sub-Divisional Magistrates invoked Section 122 (1) (b) of the Criminal Procedure Code and then passed the impugned orders directing them to be imprisoned till the expiry of the period executed in the bond. Without entering into the factual matrix, it would suffice to decide as to whether the various orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrates concerned are in accordance with law.
3. Admittedly, show cause notice was issued initially under Section 110 of the Criminal Procedure Code. After full-fledged inquiry, a final order was passed directing the petitioners to execute bonds under Section 117 of the Criminal Procedure Code and accordingly the petitioners executed the bonds.
4. Section 117 of the Criminal Procedure Code speaks about two aspects. They are: Execution of bonds can for keeping the peace, and execution of bonds for maintaining good behaviour. In all these cases, bonds were admittedly executed for maintaining good behaviour, since proceedings were initiated only under Section 110 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Section 117 of the Criminal Procedure Code makes a distinction between bonds to be executed for keeping the peace and for maintaining good behaviour. The relevant portion of the provision is this:
"If upon inquiry, it is proved that it is necessary for keeping the peace or maintaining good behaviour, as the case may be..."
A careful reading of this provision only indicates that the provision makes a distinction between the bond to be executed for keeping the peace and the bond to be executed for maintaining good behaviour. The schedule to the Criminal Procedure Code also contains two different forms. Form No.12 has to be used by the authorities concerned, if bond has to be executed to keep the peace, whereas Form No.13 is provided for execution of the bond for good behaviour. Therefore, there can be no doubt that a bond can be executed either for keeping the peace or for maintaining good behaviour. But not for both. Even if a person is asked to execute bond for proceedings initiated under Section 107 as well as under Section 110 of the Criminal Procedure Code even then two different bonds have to be executed by him. Therefore, Section 117 makes it clear that the bond for keeping the peace is distinct and different from the bond for maintaining good behaviour. If the proceedings are initiated under Section 107, a bond is ordered to be executed for keeping the peace in Form No.12 and if the proceedings are initiated under Section 110, a bond for maintaining good behaviour has to be executed in Form No.13.
5. Now coming to the provision contained in Section 122 (1)
(b), which was invoked by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to imprison the petitioners, I find that the said provision speaks only about execution of bond for keeping the peace. Section 122 (1) (b) starts like this "if any person after having executed a bond without sureties for keeping the peace in pursuance of an order of a Magistrate under Section 117, is proved, to the satisfaction of such Magistrate or his successor-in-office to have committed breach of the bond, such Magistrate or successor-in-office may, after recording the grounds of such proof, order that the person be arrested or detained in prison until the expiry of the period of the bond..."
Therefore it is made clear that Section 122 (1)(b) is not attracted when the bond was executed for maintaining good behaviour. Of course, there appears to be no provision, in case of violation of a bond executed for maintaining good behaviour except to forfeit the bonds. It is left to the Parliament or Legislature concerned to fill up the gap, if necessary. It would suffice to say that in so far as the violations committed in breach of the bond executed under Section 117 in the proceedings initiated under Section 110, Section 122 (1)(b) is not at all attracted and therefore, the order passed by the SubDivisional Magistrates concerned have to be quashed.
6. The reading of the affidavit filed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate – cum – Revenue Divisional Officer, Ariyalur exhibits his sentiments in keeping public order. There can be no dispute that the prohibition offenders have become a menace to the society and that has to be curbed by the iron hands of the State. But at the same time, this Court is unable to endorse an order passed without jurisdiction.
7. In view of the above discussion, I am inclined to set aside the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional MALAI.SUBRAMANIAN,J Magistrates concerned and accordingly the revisions stand allowed. Consequently, all connected pending Crl.M.Ps are closed.
sl Index:Yes Internet:Yes