DEVADASSAN versus THE SECOND CLASS EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE, RAMANATHAPURAM & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 1 S.C.R. 868 · Decided: 09-03-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: INDIRA BANERJEE · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
868
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
[2022] 1 S.C.R. 868
868
DEVADASSAN
v.
THE SECOND CLASS EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE,
RAMANATHAPURAM & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 388 of 2022)
MARCH 09, 2022
[INDIRA BANERJEE AND J.K. MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
ss. 122(1)(b), 111, 117 and 110 – Security for keeping the
peace and for good behaviour – Imprisonment in default of security
–Correctness of –On facts, bond executed by the appellant u/s. 110
rws. 117 violated by him on account of his involvement in a criminal
case, registered subsequently – Executive Magistrate and the High
Court found the appellant guilty for breach of the conditions of
bond and punished him in exercise of power u/s 122(1)(b) and sent
him to custody –Interference with – Held: Orders passed by the
High Court and the Executive Magistrate does not call for
interference – Order was passed u/ss. 111 and 117 for security, and
on violation, recourse, specified u/s. 122 was permissible – Personal
liberty of the citizens can be dealt with by following the procedure
established by law – Order passed by Executive Magistrate was
after following the procedure, so prescribed and affording due
opportunity to the appellant – Thus, the High Court rightly affirmed
the said order.
Chapter VIII – Object and scope of – Held: Chapter VIII
confer powers to the Executive Magistrate to take bond for
maintaining security and for keeping the peace and good behaviour
by the citizens – Legislature introduced the said Chapter conferring
powers on the authorities to take action for violation of peace and
tranquility in public order by the citizens of the locality, otherwise,
by following the procedure as prescribed, the action may be taken
by the competent authority.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Chapter VIII of Cr.P.C. confer powers to the
Executive Magistrate to take bond for maintaining security and
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
869
for keeping the peace and good behaviour by the citizens. As per
Section 107 Cr.P.C, on receiving the information, that any person
is likely to commit a breach of peace or disturb the public
tranquility or to do any wrongful act, the Executive Magistrate
may have power to show cause on violation of the terms of the
bond so executed for maintaining peace. To take security for good
behaviour from suspected persons and habitual offenders, powers
under Sections 109 and 110 Cr.P.C. have been conferred upon
the Executive Magistrate. In the instant case, the order was
passed under Sections 111 and 117 Cr.P.C. for security. On
violation, recourse, specified under Section 122 Cr.P.C. is
permissible. Therefore, the Legislature introduced the said
Chapter conferring powers on the authorities to take action for
violation of peace and tranquility in public order by the citizens of
the locality, otherwise, by following the procedure as prescribed,
the action may be taken by the competent authority. [Para 7]
[873-F-H; 874-A-B]
1.2 Nothing has been brought on record that how and in
what manner the procedure contemplated under Chapter VIII of
Cr.P.C. has not been followed. It is a trite law that by following
the procedure established by law, the personal liberty of the
citizens can be dealt with. On facts, the bond executed by the
appellant u/ss. 110/117 Cr.P.C. has been violated by him on
account of his involvement in a criminal case, registered
subsequently. The respondent No. 1-Executive Magistrate
affording opportunity passed the order holding the appellant guilty
for violation of the terms and conditions of the bond and punished
under Section 122(1)(b) Cr.P.C. In pursuance thereof, he is
arrested and sent to prison. The bond executed by the appellant
has not been questioned. In fact, the subsequent action of passing
the order sending him to the custody due to violation of the bond
as per the mandate of law has been assailed. The order passed
by respondent No. 1 is after following the procedure, so
prescribed and affording due opportunity to the appellant. The
High Court has rightly affirmed the said order. The orders passed
by the High Court and respondent No. 1 do not call for any
interference. [Paras 7-9][873-E-F; 874-D-E, E-G]
DEVADASSAN v. THE SECOND CLASS EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE,
RAMANATHAPURAM & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
870
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
Aldanish vs. State of NCT of Delhi 2018 SCC online
Del 12207; Devi vs. Executive Magistrate (Mad HC)
2020 SCC online Mad 2706; Prem Chand vs. Union of
India (1981) 1 SCC 639
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.