SARAVANAN Vs. ADMINISTRATIVE EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE CUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision Case has been filed to set aside the order passed by the first respondent, in M.C.No.1667/Ne. Sae. Na & Ka. Thu. Aa/ Ma.Maa/2021, dtd. 12/1/2022.

(2.) The second respondent referred a matter under Sec. 110 Cr.P.C to the first respondent. The first respondent took up the matter on file as M.C.No. 1667/2021. Before the first respondent, the petitioner has executed a bond on 12/11/2021, to maintain peace for a period of one year. Subsequently, on 26/12/2021, the petitioner involved in an offence in Crime No.1070 of 2021, under Ss. 8(c) r/w. Sec. 20(b)(iii)(B), 29 (1) of NDPS Act. On the request of the second respondent, the first respondent initiated proceedings under Sec. 122 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. and passed the impugned order. Against the impugned order, the petitioner preferred this Criminal Revision.

(3.) On the side of the petitioner, it is stated that the petitioner was produced before the first respondent on 5/1/2022 and on 7/1/2022 and the impugned order was passed on 12/1/2022. No opportunity was given to the petitioner to engage an Advocate. Free legal aid assistance was not given to the petitioner. A judgment of this Court reported in 2019 (2) MLJ (Criminal) 556 [P.Sathich @ Sathish Kumar V. State rep. by the Inspector of Police] was cited on the side of the petitioner and prayed the impugned order to be set aside.