Rajan vs Rajan
2021 Latest Caselaw 10775 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                              PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

     TUESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 9TH CHAITHRA, 1943

                        CRL.A.No.181 OF 2021

  AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 995/2017 DATED 08-05-2019 OF
  ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT(SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL FOR MARADU
                         CASES)KOZHIKODE

     CRIME NO.422/2011 OF NADAPURAM POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE


APPELLANTS/COUNTER PETITONERS/RESPONDENTS(SURETIES OF ACCUSED):

      1      RAJAN
             AGED 55 YEARS
             S/O.KANNAN, VANNATHAM KANDIYIL, NADAPURAM P.O.,
             KUMMANKODE AMSOM, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE.

      2      VASU
             AGED 50 YEARS
             S/O.KANARAN, PUTHANPEEDIKAYIL, CHELAKKAD P.O.,
             VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE.

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.R.SUDHISH
             SMT.M.MANJU
             SHRI.MUSTHAFA V.M

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT:

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

             R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

OTHER PRESENT:

             SR.PP.C.S.HRITHWIK

     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION             ON
30.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 CRL.A.NO.181 OF 2021
                                  2




                          JUDGMENT

Dated this the 30th day of March 2021

Petitioners had stood sureties for the accused in

S.C.No.995/2017 of the Sessions Court, Kozhikode.

After being granted bail, the accused failed to appear

in court, resulting in proceedings under Section 446

of Cr.P.C. being initiated. It has culminated in the

impugned order imposing penalty of Rs.25,000/-

(Rupees twenty five thousand only) each on the

petitioners.

2. The main contention urged by the learned

Counsel for the petitioners is that, after the issuance

of Annexure-A1 order, the accused had filed a

Criminal M.C. before this Court and the proceedings

in S.C.No.995/2017 is quashed and hence, the order

imposing penalty is liable to be set aside.

3. The fact that, subsequent to the impugned

order, the proceedings against the accused has been CRL.A.NO.181 OF 2021

quashed by this court is no reason for setting aside

the impugned order. At the point of time when the

impugned order was passed, the accused had

absconded and the petitioners had failed to either

secure his presence or to show cause, and hence the

court below was justified in imposing penalty. At the

same time, the fact that the proceedings against the

first accused is quashed can be taken into account for

reducing the penalty to a nominal figure.

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/30.03.2021 CRL.A.NO.181 OF 2021

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A1 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 20/01/2021 IN CRL.MC 1036 OF 2020.

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE