IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 27TH JYAISHTA, 1944
CRL.A NO.2059 OF 2007
AGAINST ORDER DATED 10/10/2003 IN M.C.No.9 OF 2003 IN S.C.No.
595 OF 2000 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE (ADHOC-I), KOLLAM
APPELLANT/COUNTER PETITIONERS 2 & 3/SURETIES:
1 DILIPKUMAR
S/O.SARASWATHY AMMA, 260, YADAVA NIVAS, ATTINGAL.
2 JAYENDHAN
S/O.APPU VELAYIL VEEDU, CHITTATTINKARA, ATTINGAL.
BY ADV.
SRI.J.JAYAKUMAR
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM.
SMT.MAYA M.N - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2
Crl.Appeal No.2059 of 2007
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Crl.Appeal No.2059 of 2007
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of June, 2022
JUDGMENT
This appeal was filed under Section 449 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The appellants were the sureties of accused No.3 in Sessions Case No.595 of 2000 before the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc)-I, Kollam. Since the 3 rd accused failed to appear before the Court, in obedience to the conditions in the bail bond, the learned Sessions Judge forfeited the bond and issued show cause notice to the accused as well as the sureties. As per the order dated 10.10.2003, the learned Sessions Judge imposed a penalty of Rs.15,000/- each on the appellants holding that they failed to appear and show sufficient reasons for not imposing the penalty. The said order is impugned in this appeal on the ground that there was procedural violation.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and also the learned Public Prosecutor. 3 Crl.Appeal No.2059 of 2007
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that no opportunity was given to the appellants for explaining the reason why the appellants could not produce the 3rd accused. On a perusal of the records, it is seen that notice issued under Section 446 of the Code, was served on both the appellants personally. It was after that the learned Sessions Judge considered the matter. On a perusal of the records, it is also evident that the appellants did not appear before the Sessions Court and explain the reasons for non production of the accused for whom they stood as sureties or for getting absolved from the penalty.
4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and perused the records, I am of the view that there occurred no procedural irregularity while passing the impugned order.
5. The learned Sessions Judge imposed the entire amount to which the appellants were bound by the bond executed by them. It appears that the learned Sessions Judge did not show any indulgence in the matter and attempted to consider whether there was any genuine 4 Crl.Appeal No.2059 of 2007 reason for non appearance of appellants before court. It is seen that the 3rd accused subsequently appeared before the Court. Taking all such aspects into account, I am of the view that the penalty amount imposed is liable to be reduced by giving remission of a part of it.
Accordingly, I allow this appeal in part and the amount of penalty as per the impugned order is reduced as Rs.4,000/-(Rupees Four thousand only) each.
Sd/-
P.G. AJITHKUMAR JUDGE PV