Mundakkanni Velayudhan vs The State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 16713 Ker

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON
     WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 20TH SRAVANA, 1943
                          CRL.A NO. 489 OF 2021
  AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 254/2013 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
                        COURT, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM
APPELLANT/S:

           MUNDAKKANNI VELAYUDHAN
           AGED 57 YEARS, S/O PALAN,
           THANIPPARA, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

           BY ADV K.RAKESH



RESPONDENT/S:

           THE STATE OF KERALA
           REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
           KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682031.


OTHER PRESENT:

           SRI.C.S. HRITHWIK SR PP




     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.08.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.Appeal No. 489 of 2021

                                      2




                                 JUDGMENT

Dated this the 11th of August 2021

The petitioner is one of the sureties to the accused in

S.C.No.254/2013 on the files of the Additional District and

Sessions Court-I, Manjeri. He failed to appear before the

court and also did not produce the accused, and therefore,

the bond executed stood forfeited and he was directed to

pay a penalty of Rs.30,000/-.

2. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner has approached

this Court under section 449 of the Cr.P.C. stating that

the accused had subsequently surrendered before the

jurisdictional court and the case against him, which was

consigned to the Long Pending Register, was refiled as

S.C.No.654/2020 and he is now facing trial.

3. Considering these mitigating circumstances and

also the fact that the petitioner is from a poor family

having the burden to look after his entire family, he seeks Crl.Appeal No. 489 of 2021

indulgence of this Court to reduce the amount imposed as

penalty.

4. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and

the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The fact that the petitioner failed to produce the

accused before the court is not disputed. It is true that

he has executed a bond for Rs.30,000/-. Considering the

fact that the accused has subsequently surrendered and the

case against him is now proceeding with trial, some

indulgence can be shown, and therefore, the amount of

penalty is reduced from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.5,000/- as

regards the petitioner. With these observations, the

Appeal is allowed in part.

Sd/-

ASHOK MENON JUDGE dkr