Kerala High Court
Mathath Kunhikannan vs Public Prosecutor on 27 January, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 7TH MAGHA, 1943
CRL.A NO. 96 OF 2022
M.C.No.45/2017 in SC.No.76/2015 OF ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS
JUDGE(FOR THE TRIAL OF CASES RELATING TO ATROCITIES AND
SEXUAL VIOLENCE TOWARDS WOMEN & CHILDREN, KOZHIKODE
APPELLANTS/COUNTER PETITIONERS:
1 MATHATH KUNHIKANNAN,AGED 61 YEARS
MUDAVENTHERI DESOM, THOONERI AMSOM, VADAKARA TALUK
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673505
2 RAMAKRISHNAN, AGED 64 YEARS
MOYILOTHIDATHIL, THOONERI AMSOM, MUDAVATHERI
DESOM, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673505
BY ADVS.J.R.PREM NAVAZ
SUMEEN S.
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
BY SRI. ARAVIND V. MATHEW, PP
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl.A.No.96/2022
-:2:-
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 27th day of January, 2022
This Crl.M.C has been filed under Section 449 of Cr.P.C
challenging the order passed by the Additional District and
Sessions Judge (for the trial of cases relating to atrocities and
sexual violence towards women and children), Kozhikode in
M.C.No.45/2017 in S.C.No.76/2015.
2. The appellants stood as sureties for the accused (A3)
in S.C.No.76/2015 by executing the bond for a sum of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) each. The accused failed to
appear at the court below and hence non bailable warrant was
issued against him. Still his presence could not be secured.
Hence, the court below initiated proceedings under Section 446
of Cr.P.C against the appellants/counter petitioners. Even
though notice was issued to the appellants, they did not appear.
Hence, the court below forfeited the bond. The entire bond
amount of Rs.50,000/- each was imposed as penalty as per the
impugned order. The said order is under challenge in this
appeal.
Crl.A.No.96/2022
3. I have heard Sri. J.R. Prem Navaz., the learned
counsel for the appellants and Sri. Aravind V. Mathew, the
learned Public Prosecutor.
4. Admittedly, the appellants stood as sureties for the
accused (A3) in S.C.No.76/2015 by executing a bond for
Rs.50,000/- each. It is also not in dispute that the accused failed
to appear at the court below and non bailable warrant was issued
against him. The mere failure on the part of the accused to
appear at the court below on the date of hearing would result in
automatic forfeiture of the bond. Hence, the court below was
absolutely justified in initiating proceedings under Section 446 of
Cr.P.C and treating the bond executed by the appellants as
forfeited.
5. The court below imposed the entire bond amount as
penalty. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
appellants are coolies and they are unable to mobilise
Rs.50,000/- each imposed as penalty. Considering the entire
facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the
appellants are coolies, I am of the view that the penalty imposed
can be reduced to Rs.20,000/- each.
Crl.A.No.96/2022
In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The penalty
imposed vide impugned order is reduced to Rs.20,000/- (Rupees
twenty thousand) each, which shall be paid by the appellants
within one month from today, failing which legal consequences
shall follow.
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
JUDGE
kp True copy
P.A. To Judge
Crl.A.No.96/2022
APPENDIX OF CRL.A 96/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
26.04.2019 IN M.C. NO: 45 OF 2017
PASSED BY THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE FOR THE TRIAL OF CASES
RELATING TO ATROCITIES AND SEXUAL
VIOLENCE TOWARDS WOMEN AND CHILDREN
KOZHIKODE IN S.C. NO: 76 OF 2015
