CRL.A NO. 492 OF 2022 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1944
CRL.A NO. 492 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER IN MC 15/2021 OF SPECIAL COURT FOR THE TRIAL
OF OFFENCES AGAINST CHILDREN (ADDL.SESSIONS COURT I), MANJERI
APPELLANTS:
1 BALAKRISHNAN M.P, AGED 35 YEARS
S/O ARAMUGHAN, MANGATTUKUZHI HOUSE,
MAKHAMPADI, PATTIKKAD, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,, PIN - 679325
2 ABDUL HAMEED, AGED 45 YEARS
S/O MARAKKAR KUTTY HAJI, KURIYATT,
VETTAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, KEEZHATTUR, MAKHAMPADI,
PATTIKKAD, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 679325
BY ADVS.
P.SAMSUDIN
M.ANUROOP
LIRA A.B.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-, PIN - 682031
BY SMT.BINDU O.V - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.A NO. 492 OF 2022 2
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal filed under Section 449 of Cr.P.C against the order passed by the Special Court for the trial of offences against Children (Additional Sessions Court I), Manjeri in M.C.No.15/2021 in S.C.No.75/2015 dated 14.12.2021.
2. The appellants stood as sureties for the accused in S.C.No.75/2015 by executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- each. Since the accused failed to appear at the court below, their bail bond was cancelled and proceedings under Section 446 of Cr.P.C was initiated. Even though, notices were issued to the appellants, they did not appear at the court below. Hence, the court below as per the impugned order imposed a penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- each. The said order is under challenge in this appeal.
3. I have heard Smt.Lira A.B, the learned counsel for the appellants and Smt.Bindu O.V, the learned Public Prosecutor. CRL.A NO. 492 OF 2022 3
4. It is not in dispute that the appellants stood as sureties for the accused in S.C.No.75/2015 by executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- each. It is also not in dispute that the accused failed to appear at the court below and non bailable warrant was issued against him. A mere failure on the part of the accused to appear at the court on the date of hearing of the case would result in automatic forfeiture of the bond. Thus, the court below was absolutely justified in treating the bond executed by the appellants as forfeited.
5. The next question is the quantum of penalty imposed by the court below. The court below imposed the entire bond amount of Rs.1,00,000/- each as penalty. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that subsequently the accused appeared and he was released on bail on executing fresh bond. The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the appellants are poor and they are not in a position to pay the penalty imposed. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that CRL.A NO. 492 OF 2022 4 the penalty imposed can be reduced to Rs.20,000/- each.
In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The penalty amount imposed by the court below vide the impugned order is reduced to Rs.20,000/- each, which shall be paid by the appellants within a period of one month, failing which the legal consequences shall follow.
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE ab CRL.A NO. 492 OF 2022 5 APPENDIX OF CRL.A 492/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER DT. 14-12-2021 IN MC 15/2021 OF ADDL SESSIONS COURT-I MANJERI RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES : NIL