Balagopalan vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 11064 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

   WEDNESDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1943

                          CRL.A.No.160 OF 2020

 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 286/2014 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
           COURT & SESSIONS COURT - IV, PATHANAMTHITTA


APPELLANTS/COUNTER PETITIONERS:

      1      BALAGOPALAN
             AGED 65 YEARS
             S/O. GOPALAN, ITTIYAM MELETHIL VEETTIL, VAYYATTUPUZHA
             MURI, CHITTAR VILLAGE, KONNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA
             DISTRICT

      2      LEELAMMA
             AGED 55 YEARS
             D/O. GOWRIAMMA, VILANGIL VEETTIL, VIJAYA VILASOM,
             VAYYATTUPUZHA MURI, CHITTAR VILLAGE, KONNI TALUK

             BY ADV. SRI.AJEESH K.SASI

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

             STATE OF KERALA
             REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
             KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.


OTHER PRESENT:

             PP M.R.DHANIL

     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION           ON
07.04.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 CRL.A.NO.160 OF 2020
                                  2




                           JUDGMENT

Dated this the 7th day of April 2021

The appellants had stood as sureties for the

accused in S.C.No.286/2014 of the Additional District

and Sessions Court-IV, Pathanamthitta. After being

enlarged on bail, the accused failed to appear in

court, resulting in proceedings under Section 446 of

Cr.P.C. being initiated against the sureties. The

proceedings culminated in the impugned order by

which penalty of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five

thousand only) each has been imposed on the

appellants.

2. The primary contention urged in this appeal

is that the appellants had taken all efforts to secure

the presence of the accused before court, but failed to

do so before the impugned order was passed and

that, after the impugned order was passed, the

accused appeared before the court and was granted CRL.A.NO.160 OF 2020

bail on the strength of fresh sureties.

3. The petitioners having failed to secure the

presence of the accused during the Section 446

Cr.P.C. proceedings, the decision to impose penalty

cannot be faulted. At the same time, the accused

having appeared before the court subsequently, the

amount of penalty is liable to be reduced.

In the result, the criminal appeal is allowed in

part. The order imposing penalty is upheld and the

quantum of penalty is reduced to Rs.1,000/- (Rupees

one thousand only) each.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN

JUDGE NB/07.04.2021 CRL.A.NO.160 OF 2020

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : NIL

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE