Ammukutty vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 14853 Ker

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                     PRESENT

                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

          THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 24TH ASHADHA, 1943

                           CRL.A NO. 812 OF 2020

 AGAINST THE ORDER DTAED 11/10/2019 IN MC NO.20/2019 IN S.C.NO.366/2018 ON

          THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE II NORTH PARAVUR

APPELLANT/COUNTER PETITIONER NO.2:

            AMMUKUTTY,
            AGED 73 YEARS,
            W/O.KUNJAPPAN PANACHAYIL HOUSE,
            7/96 KADUNGALLOOR

            BY ADV FRANKLIN ARACKAL


RESPONDENTS/STATE & COUNTER PETITIONER NO.1:

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

     2      HABEEB,
            S/O.ABUBECKER,
            EDASSERY HOUSE, 688/18,
            CHOORNIKKARA NOW RESIDING AT KUNNATH THAIKKATUKARA
            ALUVA WEST, ALUVA


OTHER PRESENT:

            SRI.T.R.RENJITH - PP



      THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.07.2021, THE

COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.A.No.812 of 2020

                                      2



                              JUDGMENT

Dated this the 15th day of July, 2021

The petitioner has approached this Court under Section

449(2) of the Cr.P.C, aggrieved by the order of the learned

Additional Sessions Judge II North Paravur, under Section 446 of

the Cr.P.C, imposing a penalty of Rs.25,000/- on the petitioner,

who had stood as one of the surety for the 1 st accused, who is her

son in S.C.No.366 of 2018 for an offence punishable under Section

302 of the IPC.

2. The 1st accused absconded after examination of

witnesses and thereafter the petitioner was not able to produce

her son and consequently, the order was passed forfeiting the

bond and imposing a penalty of Rs.25,000/- on her as also the

other surety. The petitioner states that she is an aged lady and

that she is physically not well and that the 1 st accused was

arrested subsequently. Hence, the petitioner seeks indulgence of

this Court considering her impecunious condition and physical

frailties.

Crl.A.No.812 of 2020

3. After having heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, the Crl.Appeal is

allowed-in-part and the penalty imposed on the petitioner is

reduced to Rs.5,000/- and the said amount shall be paid by the

petitioner.

With these observations, the appeal is allowed-in-part.

Sd/-

ASHOK MENON JUDGE

NR/15/07/2021