ORDER : 1. This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order dated 21.05.2016 passed by the second respondent herein viz., Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Chengalpattu, Kancheepuram District, in M.C.No.54 of 2016, directing the petitioner herein to be detained in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, for a period of six months for violation of Bond for good conduct as per Section 122(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the impugned order was passed by the learned Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Chengalpattu, Kancheepuram District, without application of mind and appreciation of facts. It is further contended that the learned Magistrate failed to note that all the cases registered against the petitioner herein are false and put up cases with a motive to harass and humiliate him in one way or other. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the learned Magistrate had failed to note the fact that without proper verification of documents and materials, all the cases have been put up against the petitioner herein and therefore, the learned counsel prayed that the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate may be set aside and the Criminal Revision Case may be allowed. 3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would contend that the learned Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Chengalpattu, Kancheepuram District, after perusing all the materials produced on behalf of the petitioner, came to a correct conclusion and passed the impugned order. It is further contended that there is no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the learned Magistrate and hence, the learned Government Advocate prayed that the Criminal Revision Case may be dismissed. 4. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the records. 5. It is admitted by the petitioner that the present petition is filed only to challenge the impugned order passed by the learned Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Chengalpattu, Kancheepuram District, in M.C.No.54 of 2016, dated 21.05.2016 and he has not challenged the earlier order passed by the same Magistrate. It is admitted on the side of the petitioner that on 28.04.2016, the petitioner had executed a bond under Section 110 of Cr.P.C. for his good conduct which reads as follows:- xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 6. It is admitted on the side of the petitioner that on 28.04.2016, the petitioner had executed a bond under Section 110 of Cr.P.C. for his good conduct which reads as follows:- xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 6. The order passed by the second respondent herein viz., learned Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Chengalpattu, Kancheepuram District, reads as follows:- xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 7. On perusal of the above order, it is seen that the petitioner had executed a bond under Section 110 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Chengalpattu, Kancheepuram District, on 28.04.2016 itself for his good conduct stating that he will not indulge in any criminal activities and the same was not challenged. But, after the execution of the bond on 28.04.2016, the petitioner had involved in another case in Crime No.430 of 2016 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 448, 294(b), 324, 307, 3(1) of TNPPDL Act on 16.05.2016. 8. Considering the fact that after the execution of the bail bond on 28.04.2016, since the petitioner had involved in another case in Crime No.430 of 2016 and admitted guilty, the learned Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Chengalpattu, Kancheepuram District, has passed the impugned order on 21.05.2016. Therefore, there is no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the learned Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Chengalpattu, Kancheepuram District. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Magistrate which does not warrant any interference by this Court and hence, the criminal revision case is liable to be dismissed. 9. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.