NAGARAJ Vs. THE EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the order dtd. 2/6/2021 passed in M.P.No.04 of 2021 in LIR.No.38/Sec.Pro/DCP WPT/2020 on the file of the Executive Magistrate and the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Wannarpet District.

(2.) According to the petitioner, the second respondent/police registered a case against the petitioner under Sec. 110 Cr.P.C. On receipt of the summons, the petitioner appeared before the first respondent and executed a bond under Sec. 110 Cr.P.C. During the said bond period, the second respondent police registered another case against the petitioner, by stating that the petitioner violated the earlier proceedings and involved in another case in Crime No.3764 of 2020 for the offence under Ss. 147, 148, 294(b), 341, 427, 307 and 506(ii) IPC and he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. After enquiry, on 8/1/2021, the first respondent without giving opportunity to the petitioner initiated proceedings under Sec. 122 (1) (b) Cr.P.C and also cancelled the bail bond executed under Sec. 110 Cr.P.C and directed the petitioner to undergo imprisonment for the remaining bond period. Subsequently, the first respondent suo motu re-opened his own order and conducted fresh enquiry and passed an impugned order on 2/6/2021. Challenging the said impugned, the petitioner is before this Court.

(3.) Mr.V.Parthiban, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the first respondent/Executive Magistrate has no power to re-open and review his own order. He would further submit that the first respondent even though conducted the enquiry failed to appreciate the evidence elicited during the cross examination in favour of the petitioner and passed the impugned order. Hence, both the impugned orders passed by the first respondent are liable to be set aside.