'Casually Playing With Personal Liberty Of Accused': Madras HC Recommends Criminal Law Training For Executive Magistrates

The Madras High Court recently came down heavily on Executive Magistrates passing orders "without knowing or understanding the basic concepts of criminal law". The remarks were made while hearing a challenge to an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate cum Revenue Divisional Magistrate under Section 122(1) (b) of CrPC.

Justice K Murali Shankar lamented that the Executive Magistrates were passing orders mechanically, without conducting any sort of inquiry.

"..this Court is constrained to say that the Executing Magistrates, without knowing/understanding the basic concepts of criminal justice delivery system and by conducting some sort of enquiry as per their whims and fancies, are playing with the personal liberty of the accused, casually and mechanically."

The court thus noted that the government should conduct Training/Refresher Courses for newly appointed Executive Magistrates to ensure that they conduct enquiry in a proper manner.

It is right time for the Government to take appropriate steps to conduct Training or Refresher courses to the newly appointed or promoted Executive Magistrates about the basic concepts of criminal law, how to conduct enquiry and how to pass reasoned orders.

The Magistrate has the power to take security from a convicted person for maintaining peace and execute a bond with or without sureties in this regard. Section 122 gives power to the Magistrate to imprison a person for failure to give security under Section 106 or 117 or if he commits breach of the bond.

The court pointed out that the criminal jurisprudence mandates that each person be given a meaningful and fair opportunity in terms of Article 21 of the Constitution and this would be applicable even in proceedings under Section 106 and 117 of CrPC. 

In this regard, the Madras High Court in P.Sathish @ Sathish Kumar Vs. State rep. by the Inspector of Police and another had formulated legal principles to be followed by the Executive Magistrates while passing orders under Section 122 CrPC. These guidelines are an integral part of Article 21 and 22 and also in consonance with Section 39-A of the Direct Principles of State Policy. 

The court however noted that even though instructions were issued to the Executive Magistrates to follow these guidelines, they were still unaware of these guidelines and have failed to take steps to follow them.

The bench also said that out of the 41 criminal revision cases that it had disposed of in the 3 months of handling criminal revision portfolio, in 40 cases the Executive Magistrate had not followed the principles laid down by the court, nor had they followed the principles of natural justice.

It is pertinent to note that in 40 cases, the orders of the Executive Magistrates were set aside only on the ground that they have not followed the legal principles laid down by this Court and also the basic principles of natural justice.

In the present case, the Sub Divisional Magistrate had not followed the due procedure. It had not given details regarding examination of any witnesses nor marked any document. There were no details as to whether the accused was informed of his right for legal representation or if he was properly heard before passing the orders.Thus, finding that the impugned order was not good in law the court set aside the same. 

Case Title: Vinoth v Sub Divisional Magistrate and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 458