PRAVIN VIJAYKUMAR TAWARE Vs. SPECIAL EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Number of cases are coming before this Court complaining of an abuse of powers by the Executive Magistrate under Chapter VIII of the Criminal Procedure Code. These cases come from the cities or bigger towns. This Court has not seen a case coming from a remote village. Obviously, the people living in such areas do not find it possible to reach the High Court. Therefore, this Court presumes that these powers may be abused with impunity as the persons suffering under these areas may not be able to reach the High Court. The power of the Executive Magistrate are exercised in the State of Andhra Pradesh by the Assistant Commissioner of Police InCharge of the area. There is always a clash of interest between a Police Officer In Charge of an area and the Magistrate exercising the magisterial power within the same area. We had earlier also expressed a desire that the Government should consider delegating these powers either to Judicial Magistrates or at least to officials of the Revenue Department. The provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code are being misused and abused sometimes purposely, but more often without note because of ignorance of law. We are taking this case as one of the sample cases for the purpose of demonstrating as to how the provisions of law are being abused.

(2.) Since the issues involved in both the above writ petitions are same, both the writ petitions are being decided by this common judgment. For the purpose of deciding the issue, the facts in Criminal Writ Petition No. 2682 of 2008 are taken note of.

(3.) The petitioners received a notice 24th March, 2008. The petitioners submit that they are law abiding citizens and have never been involved in commission of any offence. According to them, two false complaints were registered against the petitioners. In Sessions case No. 58 of 1996, one of petitioner was acquitted and another was discharged. In another case being C. R. No. 8 of 2008 the petitioner No. 1 had been admitted to bail in anticipation of his arrest. The respondent issued a notice under Section 111 of the Criminal Procedure Code on 24th march, 2008 and the proceedings were fixed for hearing 6th April, 2008. But the respondent passed orders on the same day i.e. 24th march, 2006 purportedly under Section 116(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure without giving any opportunity of being heard, directing the petitioners to execute an interim bond for good behaviour on conditions. The petitioners contend that it was not possible for the petitioners to arrange for surety and the surety which the respondents had sought and, therefore, the petitioner No. 1 was arrested and sent to jail on the same day. The petitioner No. 1 filed a revision in the Court of Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge allowed the revision partly.