LAWS(MAD)-1984-6-8

PERUMAL Vs. STATE

Decided On June 22, 1984
PERUMAL Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed to set aside the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Aruppukkottai, u/s.116(3), Cr.P.C. calling upon the petitioners to execute an interim bond till the disposal of the proceedings in M.C. No.55 of 1984 on his file. The said order was challenged mainly on the ground that the learned Magistrate, without making any enquiry into the truth of the information and without commencing the enquiry, has passed the said order and it is illegal. The learned counsel also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Madhu Limaye v. Ved Murti (1972 Mad LW (Cri) (SN) 1) which runs as follows (paras 15 and 16)

(2.) In the instant case, the parties appeared before the Magistrate on 5-4-1984 in pursuance of the Criminal notice served on them and the matter was adjourned to 16-4-1984. In the meanwhile, on the receipt of the report from the police, the learned Magistrate straightway passed an order u/s.116(3), Cr PC directing the petitioners herein to execute the interim bond. It is significant to note that neither the details of the bond nor the period was mentioned. The learned Magistrate has also not applied his mind or held any enquiry on receipt of the report from the police. Nor any opportunity was given to the petitioners to put forth their contentions. As laid down by the Supreme Court and also by this Court in the decisions cited above, the impugned order passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate is clearly illegal and liable to be quahsed.

(3.) In the result, the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Aruppukkottai, calling upon the petitioners under S.116(3) Cr PC to execute the interim bond is hereby set aside and this petition is allowed. Petition allowed.