The second respondent had filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 110 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On receipt of the summons, the petitioner went before the 1st respondent and executed a bond under Section 110. The 2nd respondent filed a new lawsuit against the petitioner during the bond period, alleging that the petitioner had breached the previous proceedings. The petitioner was arrested and sent to judicial prison in another instance for an offence under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 341, 427, 307, and 506(ii) of the IPC. Following the investigation, the first respondent, without allowing the petitioner, filed a complaint under Section 122(1)(b) of the CrPC and annulled the bail bond. The petitioner was sentenced to serve the remainder of his bond period in prison.
The 1st Respondent reopened his order on his own motion, conducted a new investigation, and issued the impugned order. As a result, the petitioner filed an appeal of the same impugned ruling.
According to the petitioner, the first respondent lacked the authority to reopen and reconsider his own order. It was further argued that, despite conducting the investigation, the first respondent failed to grasp the evidence elicited during cross-examination in favour of the petitioner and hence issued the impugned order. As a result, the 1st respondent's orders were likely to be overturned.
Respondents, on the other hand, argued that the petitioner had been involved in prior matters and that the petitioner had been given sufficient opportunity. The 1st respondent reopened the proceedings and issued the impugned order in order to comply with the directives. Thus there was no value in this Criminal Case and was subject to be dismissed.
Observation of the Court:
The court had noted that while the petitioner was in detention, he was produced before the 1st respondent on a Prisoner's Transit Warrant, and had passed the order without giving the petitioner any time to hire a lawyer to defend him. Following that, the 1st respondent suo motu recalled the order, giving the petitioner ample chance to hire counsel to fight the case, and procedures under Section 122(1)(b) of the CrPC were started, and the impugned order was issued.
The court ruled that the Executive Magistrate's order should be overturned, and that the Criminal Revision Case should be granted. The petitioner was ordered to be released by the Superintendent of Police at Central Prison if he was not needed in any other case.