Madras High Court Dismisses the Criminal Revision Petition in Gurusamy’s Case

Must Read

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work,...

Follow us

This criminal revision case was filed under Section 397 read with 401 of the CrPC to call for the records connected with the order passed by the first respondent i.e., the Sub Divisional Executive Magistrate in M.C. No. 447 of 2019 dated 17th February, 2020. To set aside the mentioned order as illegal. The petition seeks to set aside the mentioned order passed by the respondents. The case of Gurusamy v. The Sub divisional Executive Magistrate & Ors was heard by the Division Bench Judge Mrs. Justice R. Tharani.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner executed a bind under Section 110 Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), in Crime No. 992 of 2019, Virudhunagar West Police Station. This order under Section 110 was passed against the petitioner. Against the order, the petitioner approached the Court for setting aside the impugned order. 

Petitioner’s Arguments

  • The counsel for the Petitioner maintained that on 15th February, 2020, the first respondent issued summons for the appearance of the petitioner. 
  • On 17th February, 2020, without giving an opportunity to the petitioner, the first respondent passed the impugned order and directed to detain the petitioner. On 16th, it is stated that the respondent did not furnish any copies of the document and no opportunity was given to the petitioner to put forth his case. Mandatory requirements were not properly followed by the respondent and prayed the impugned order to be set aside.
  • It is further stated that a letter was sent to the petitioner, while he was in custody in the prison. He gave vakalath meaning  to Advocate. The advocate just filed the vakalath and he did not participate in any enquiry. 
  • The petitioner was produced before the Revenue Divisional Officer, i.e., the second respondent, only once on 14th February, 2020. It is contended that the petitioner was not served with the copy of the documents. No opportunity was given to the petitioner to participate in the enquiry. The procedures were not duly followed and prayed the detention order to be set aside.

Respondent’s Arguments

  • On the side of the respondents, it is stated that the petitioner is a habitual offender and history sheeted accused and the history sheet was maintained in H.S.No.667 of 2007. 
  • Since he frequently involved in various crime activities, on request of the second respondent i.e., the Inspector of Police, after conducting proper enquiry, the first respondent directed the petitioner to execute a bond for security of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) under Section 110 of CrPC, for maintaining peace and good behaviour for a period of one year. Accordingly, the petitioner executed a bond on 17th October, 2019. 
  • Thereafter, the second respondent sent a report dated 07th January, 2020 stating that on 04th January, 2020, again the petitioner got involved in a criminal offence and that a case was registered in Crime No.5 of 2020 for the offence under Section 341, 294(b) and 387 of IPC and requested the first respondent to initiate action against the petitioner under Section 122(1)(b) of CrPC.
  • In addition, it is stated that the earlier version of the petitioner is that the summon was served on the petitioner on 15th February, 2020. 
  • Without giving an opportunity to the petitioner, the impugned order was passed whereas the CD files reveal that the petitioner was present. The petitioner counsel was present on 23rd January, 2020. 
  • The petitioner and his counsel appeared on 27th January, 2020 and again on 14th, 15th and 17th February, 2020. The petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to present his case. 
  • The petitioner filed his detailed statement on 17th February, 2020. All the procedures are correctly followed and there is no necessity to set aside the impugned order.

Court’s Orders

The court held that enough opportunities were given to the petitioner. There are no procedural discrepancies in the impugned order. But the original offence is of the year 2018. The bond was executed only in the year 2019. The petitioner is in custody for approximately 9 months. He almost served 3/4th of the period mentioned of the detention order. 

The Criminal Revision Case was allowed, and the impugned order in M.C.No.447 of 2019 dated 17.02.2020, on the file of the first respondent was set aside.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding that mens rea is an...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @ Balli v State. The bench...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up testing facilities in Delhi.   Facts of...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has set aside the 24.07.2019 Order...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an order restraining the manufacturing, marketing,...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work, except the drinking water component...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years old (victim) at their home....

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of the Applicant to release him...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S....

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -