P.Bhargavan vs State
2021 Latest Caselaw 8903 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI

   WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                      CRL.A.No.1873 OF 2006

 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN MC NO.38/2005 IN SC 213/2005 DATED
   16-01-2006 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)1, KASARAGOD



APPELLANTS/COUNTER PETITIONERS 2 & 3 (SURETIES):

      1      P.BHARGAVAN,
             AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.GOVINDAN,
             RESIDING AT NALAMVATHUKKAL,
             BARE, KASARGOD DISTRICT.

      2      K.V.RAVEENDRAN,
             AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN,
             RESIDING AT MALANKUNNU,
             PALLIKKARA VILLAGE,
             KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.M.SASINDRAN
             SHRI.K.P.HARISH


RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

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

             BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT SYLAJA


     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.03.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 CRL.A.No.1873 OF 2006

                                    2



                               JUDGMENT

Dated this the 17th day of March 2021

The counter petitioners 2 & 3 in M.C.No.38/2005 in

S.C.No.213/2005 of the Additional Sessions Court, Adhoc

1, Kasaragod have filed this appeal challenging the

order dated 16.01.2006, whereby they have been imposed

with a penalty of ₹10,000/- each, as undertaken by them

in the bond executed before the committal court on

23.02.1994.

2. The State had filed a petition alleging that

the 4th accused who had been enlarged on bail failed to

appear before the court and the appellants had stood as

sureties, undertaking to produce the 4th accused before

the court. Since the 4th accused was not available and

the sureties could not ensure the presence of the 4th

accused before the court, the State had approached the

court for action against the sureties.

3. It is seen from the order that the counter

petitioners failed to appear before the court and there

was no representation on their behalf. In the said CRL.A.No.1873 OF 2006

circumstances, the court below concluded that they had

no explanation to offer against the imposition of

penalty. It is aggrieved by the above order, the

appellants have come up before this Court.

4. Heard Sri.M.Sasindran, learned counsel on

behalf of the appellants and Smt.Sylaja, learned Public

Prosecutor on behalf of the State.

5. When the case had come up for orders on

08.03.2021 this Court had directed the learned Public

Prosecutor to get instructions as to the present stage

of S.C.No.213/2005 on the file of the Additional

Sessions Court, Adhoc I, Kasaragod.

6. Today when the case is taken up, the learned

Public Prosecutor submits that S.C.No.213/2005 was

proceeded with in the absence of the 4th accused and

accused Nos.1 to 3 & 5 were acquitted. The case was

renumbered against the 4th accused and the said case

also ended in acquittal of the 4th accused. As such all

the accused in the sessions case stand acquitted as on

today.

CRL.A.No.1873 OF 2006

7. In the light of the subsequent events, I am of

the opinion that the sureties need not be burdened to a

further penalty. It is submitted that they have already

paid a sum of ₹1,000/- each on 22.03.2006 towards the

penalty. I am of the opinion that the order of the

court below can be modified by reducing the penalty to

a sum of ₹1,000/- each which has already been paid by

the appellants.

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order

of the court below is modified by reducing the penalty

from ₹10,000/- each to ₹1,000/- each. There will be no

order as to costs.

Sd/-

T.R.RAVI, JUDGE

Pn