IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 5TH JYAISHTA, 1944
CRL.A NO. 529 OF 2022
CRIME NO.323/2016 OF Vellarikundu Police Station, Kasargod
ORDER IN MC 97/2017 IN SC 754/2016 DATED 06/06/2018 OF
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT - I, KASARAGOD
APPELLANTS/COUNTER APPELLANTS:
1 KARTHAYAYINI
AGED 54 YEARS
H NO 359, PADAYAMKAALU, DARKAS, MALLOM VILLAGE,
VELLARIKUNDU TALUK, KASARGOD, PIN - 671533
2 BABU K.
AGED 37 YEARS
PADAYAMKAALU, DARKAS, MALLOM VILLAGE, VALLARIKUNDU
TALUK, KASARGOD, PIN - 671533
BY ADV RAMESH .P
RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
SMT. SHEEBA THOMAS, PP
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
26.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl.A.No.529/2022
-:2:-
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 26th day of May, 2022 This appeal has been preferred under Section 449 of Cr.P.C challenging the order passed by the Additional Sessions Court I, Kasaragod under Section 446 of Cr.P.C. in M.C.No.97/2017 in S.C.No.754/2016.
2. The appellants herein stood as sureties for the accused in S.C.No.754/2016 by executing a bond for ₹50,000/- each. Thereafter, the accused failed to appear at the court below. Hence non bailable warrant was issued against him, yet his presence could not be secured. Hence, the court below initiated proceedings under Section 446 of Cr.P.C against the appellants. Even though opportunity was given to the appellants to produce the accused, they failed to produce him. Hence, the court below forfeited the bond and ₹25,000/- each was imposed as penalty as per the impugned order. The said order is under challenge in this appeal.
Crl.A.No.529/2022 -:3:-
3. I have heard Sri. Ramesh, the learned counsel for the appellants and Smt. T.V. Neema, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.
4. Admittedly, the appellants stood as sureties for the accused in S.C.No.754/2016 by executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- 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. The mere failure on the part of the accused to appear at the court below on the date of hearing would result in automatic forfeiture of the bond. Hence, the court below was absolutely justified in initiating proceedings under Section 446 of Cr.P.C and treating the bond executed by the appellants as forfeited.
5. The court below imposed ₹25,000/- each as penalty. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants belong to SC/ST community and are coolie workers and they are unable to mobilise ₹25,000/- each imposed as penalty. Considering the fact that the appellants are coolies and also the fact that the 1 st appellant is a lady, I am of the view that Crl.A.No.529/2022 -:4:- the penalty imposed can be reduced to ₹5,000/- each.
In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The penalty imposed vide impugned order is reduced to ₹5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) each, which shall be paid by the appellants within one month from today, failing which legal consequences shall follow.
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE kp Crl.A.No.529/2022 -:5:- APPENDIX OF CRL.A 529/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES AnnexureA1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT-I, KASARGOD AnnexureA2 TRUE COPY OF THE CASTE CERTIFICATE OF THE 1ST APPELLANT DATED 16/01/2022 AnnexureA3 TRUE COPY OF THE CASTE CERTIFICATE OF THE 2ND APPELLANT DATED 16/01/2022 AnnexureA4 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN M.C. NO.
97/2017 (S.C. NO. 754/2016)OF THE ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-I, KASARGOD DATED 06/06/2018