DEVADASSANversusTHE SECOND CLASS EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE, RAMANATHAPURAM & ORS.

868                      [2022]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT    1 S.C.R. 868                [2022] 1 S.C.R.


A                               DEVADASSAN
                                        v.
             THE SECOND CLASS EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE,
                    RAMANATHAPURAM & ORS.
                        (Criminal Appeal No. 388 of 2022)
B
                                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
C     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
D     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
E     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
F     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
G
      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
H
                                       868
DEVADASSAN v. THE SECOND CLASS EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE,                    869
               RAMANATHAPURAM & ORS.

for keeping the peace and good behaviour by the citizens. As per        A
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
                                                                        B
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             C
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]
                                                                        D
       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
                                                                        E
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             F
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
                                                                        G
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]

                                                                        H
870            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 1 S.C.R.


A           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 : [1981] (1) SCR 1262;
            Gopalanachari vs. State of Kerala 1980 (Supp) SCC
            649 : [1981] SCR 1271 – referred to.
B
                              Case Law Reference
      [1981] (1) SCR 1262              referred to               Para 4
      [1981] SCR 1271                  referred to               Para 4

C           CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
      388 of 2022.
           From the Judgment and Order dated 22.07.2021 of the High Court
      of Madras at Madurai Bench in Crl.RC(MD) No.379 of 2021.
           A. Velan, Ms. Navpreet Kaur, Niranjan S. Kumar, Rudraksh
D     Gupta, A. Lakshminarayanan, Advs. for the Appellant.
            Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., Ms. Preeti Singh, Ms. Ripul Swati Singh,
      Sanjeev Kumar Mahara, Advs. for the Respondents.
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E           J. K. MAHESHWARI, J.
            1. Leave granted.
             2. Assailing the order dated 22.7.2021 passed in Criminal RC(MD)
      No. 379 of 2021 and Crl. MP (MD) No. 3829 of 2021 by the Madras
      High Court, Madurai Bench, confirming the order dated 13.5.2021 of
F     the respondent No. 1 in MC No. 95 of 2021 (A3), the present appeal has
      been filed by the appellant.
             3. The facts in brief are, the respondent No. 1 and the High
      Court found the appellant guilty for breach of the conditions of bond and
      punished him in exercise of power under Section 122(1)(b) of the Code
G     of Criminal Procedure (in short “Cr.P.C.”). The orders impugned indicate
      that the appellant was indulged in criminal activities, however, the
      respondent No. 1 after notice and affording opportunity, passed order on
      24.2.2021 under Section 117 read with Section 110(e) Cr.P.C.. In
      compliance, the appellant executed a bond to maintain good behaviour
      and peace for a period of one year and also undertook to pay Rs. 50,000/
H
DEVADASSAN v. THE SECOND CLASS EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE,                          871
    RAMANATHAPURAM & ORS. [J. K. MAHESHWARI, J.]

- as penalty to the Government in case of breach or else face the             A
proceedings under Section 122(1)(b) Cr.P.C. Even on execution of bond,
he was found involved in an offence of commission of murder, registered
by Uchipuli Police Station as Crime No. 149 of 2021 under Sections
147/148/342/302 read with 109/120(B) IPC. The respondent No. 1 vide
order dated 13.5.2021 found him guilty for breach of bond however,
                                                                              B
ordered his arrest and sent him to the custody. The said order has been
affirmed by the High Court, however, this appeal has been filed
challenging both the orders.
       4. Shri A. Lakshminarayanan, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant has strenuously urged that the orders passed by the
administrative authorities usually do not follow the procedure prescribed     C
and afford reasonable opportunity. The High Court of Delhi in the case
of Aldanish vs. State of NCT of Delhi 2018 SCC online Del 12207
issued the guidelines to impart training to these officers. Reliance has
also been placed on the judgment of Madras High Court in the case of
Devi vs. Executive Magistrate (Mad HC) 2020 SCC online Mad 2706,              D
wherein the High Court taking a different view from the previous
judgment directed to place the matter before Hon’ble the Chief Justice
for constituting the Division Bench to hear the similar issue. Learned
counsel has also placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Prem
Chand vs. Union of India (1981) 1 SCC 639 specifying the manner, in
which the police personnel must act upon, but the personal liberty cannot     E
be put into peril on their mercy. Further, placing reliance on the judgment
of this Court in the case of Gopalanachari vs. State of Kerala 1980
(Supp) SCC 649, learned counsel emphasized the importance of Article
21 of the Constitution of India and its significance. In view of the said
submissions, imposition of conditions in the bond without due enquiry         F
and affording reasonable opportunity is wholly unjustified, and appellant
cannot be held guilty and may be sent to the custody unceremoniously.
        5. On the other hand, Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., learned counsel
representing the respondents contends that eight criminal cases were
pending against the appellant, therefore bond of good behaviour was           G
taken in exercise of the power under Section 117 Cr.P.C. asking security.
On violation of the said bond, by virtue of the powers conferred under
Section 122(1)(b) Cr.P.C., the order impugned has rightly been passed.
It is urged that Chapter VIII of Cr.P.C. confer powers to the Executive
Magistrate for taking bond to keep the peace and security for good
behaviour from the suspected persons. Appellant gave the undertaking          H
872            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2022] 1 S.C.R.


A     on breach of conditions of bond due to which he may be dealt with as
      per Section 122(1)(b) Cr.P.C. Later, appellant was found involved in an
      offence of commission of murder, however a show cause notice was
      issued fixing date for appearance on 7.5.2021. In the reply filed by
      appellant, execution of the bond has not been disputed and making him
      accused in a murder case has also not been denied, except to controvert
B
      that without proving guilt, he may not be responsible for the said act.
      The competent authority affording opportunity to the appellant, has rightly
      passed the order on 13.5.2021 on establishing violation of the terms of
      the bond executed on 24.2.2021 by the appellant. It is urged procedure
      as contemplated has been followed by the respondents, however,
C     interference was not called by the High Court, to which interference
      under Article 136 of Constitution is not warranted.
             6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of
      record, it appears that from 2012 to January, 2021, eight criminal cases
      were registered against the appellant, including of simple and grievous
D     hurt, theft and also under the Arms Act. After the report received from
      the respondent No. 2, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant
      and enquiry was conducted by respondent No. 1. In furtherance thereto,
      his statement was recorded and the response had also been taken. The
      respondent No. 1 recorded the satisfaction that the appellant might cause
      breach of peace in the locality, however directed him to furnish a bond
E     to the sum of Rs. 50,000 without surety for a period of one year under
      Section 117 Cr.P.C., failing which he may serve the imprisonment under
      Section 122(1)(a) Cr. P.C. or in case of breach of conditions, recourse
      of Section 122(1)(b) Cr.P.C. may be taken. The contents of the bond
      executed by the appellant are relevant hence reproduced as under:
F           “MC No. 95/2021
            ORDER MADE U/S 117 CR.P.C. READ WITH 110(E)
            CR.P.C.
                  This case was initiated in the court of 2nd Class Magistrate
            and Tahsildar, Ramanathapuram on the basis of case registered
G
            in Uchipuli Police Station. This person was produced before this
            Court on 24.2.2021. Enquiry was conducted in the court and the
            provisions mentioned in show cause notice issued was explained
            to DEVADHASAN 28/21, S/O DEIVENTHIRAN,
            MARAVETTIVALASAI, in detail statement and arguments of
H           the parties were taken.
DEVADASSAN v. THE SECOND CLASS EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE,                            873
    RAMANATHAPURAM & ORS. [J. K. MAHESHWARI, J.]

             Considering all these facts and the information received           A
      from inquiry, this Court has arrived at the conclusion at the person
      Name Devadhasan 28/21, s/o DEIVENTHIRAN is likely to
      create Breach of Peace in the locality and therefore shall be bound
      u/s 117 Cr.P.C. by using a bond for Rs. 50,000/- without sureties,
      for a period of one year from.
                                                                                B
             Thus, this Court of Second Class Ex. Magistrate and
      Tahsildar, Ramanathapuram hereby ordered to execute a Bond
      for Rs. 50000/- without sureties, for a period of 1 year from
      24.2.2021 failing which he shall serve imprisonment for the above
      mentioned u/s 122(1)(a) in case of breach conditions during the
      period of bond the individual state be imprisonment for the remaining     C
      period u/s 122 (1)(b).
                                                      Sd/-
                                                 Second Class Magistrate
                                                      & Tahsildar
                                                                                D
                                                      Ramanathapuram”
        7. After execution of bond, on 31.3.2021 Crime No. 141 of 2021
was registered joining the appellant as co-accused for the offences under
Sections 147/148/342/302 r/w 109/120(B) IPC at P.S. Uchipuli,
Ramanathapuram and breached the terms and conditions of the bond. A             E
show cause notice was issued asking the response and also sought
appearance of appellant before the respondent No. 1 on 7.5.2021. He
submitted his explanation and his statement was recorded. The respondent
No. 1 affording opportunity passed the order on 13.5.2021 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 of the order, he          F
is arrested and sent to prison. It is to observe that Chapter VIII of Cr.P.C.
confer powers to the Executive Magistrate to take bond for maintaining
security and 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   G
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. As per Section 108 of Cr.P.C., similar power has been given for
maintaining the security for good behaviour from persons disseminating
seditious matters. Similarly, to take security for good behaviour from
suspected persons and habitual offenders, powers under Sections 109             H
874                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2022] 1 S.C.R.


A     and 110 Cr.P.C. have been conferred upon the Executive Magistrate. In
      the present 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
B
      following the procedure as prescribed, the action may be taken by the
      competent authority.
               8. Learned counsel for the appellant has heavily relied upon the
      directions issued by the Delhi High Court as well as Madras High Court
      in the cases of Aldanish & Devi (supra) emphasizing in general that the
C     administrative officers do not follow the procedure, so prescribed and
      also relied upon the judgment of Gopalanachari (supra) emphasizing
      the importance of Article 21 of the Constitution of India affecting personal
      liberty of the citizens. But, in the facts of the case at hand, nothing has
      been brought on record that how and in what manner the procedure
D     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. Looking to the facts of this case,
      the bond executed by the appellant on 24.2.2021 under Section 110 read
      with Section 117 Cr.P.C. has been violated by him on account of his
      involvement in a criminal case, registered subsequently. In the present
E     case, the bond executed by the appellant has not been questioned. In
      fact, the subsequent action of passing the order dated 13.5.2021 sending
      him to the custody due to violation of the bond as per the mandate of law
      has been assailed. As per the discussion made hereinabove, in our
      considered opinion, the order passed by respondent No. 1 is after following
F     the procedure, so prescribed and affording due opportunity to the
      appellant. The High Court has rightly affirmed the said order. In the
      facts, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant
      cannot be countenanced.
            9. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, we are of the
G     considered view that the orders passed by the High Court and respondent
      No. 1 do not call for any interference. Therefore, this appeal is bereft of
      any merit, hence dismissed.


      Nidhi Jain                                                    Appeal dismissed.
H