Moideen Kutty vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 1094 Ker

             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. 102 OF 2022
     IN M.C. 7/2021 IN SC 655/2021 OF SPECIAL JUDGE (POCSO
              CASES)FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT,MANJERI
APPELLANTS/COUNTER PETITIONERS:

1          MOIDEEN KUTTY, S/O KUNHIMOHAMMED, KAMMILIPARAMBIN
           HOUSE, THALAKKADATHOOR POST, CHERIYAMUNDAM, TIRUR
           TALUK, MALAPPURAM -676103


2          SARFUDHEEN, S/O UNNEN, PARAPPIL HOUSE,
           BEERANCHIRA, KODAKKAL POST, TIRUR TALUK MALAPPURAM
           676108

           BY ADVS.ABDUL SHUKOOR MUNDAMBRA
           NABIL KHADER
           JOHN TONY AKKARA
           RAFNA RAZAK



RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

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

           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.102/2022

                                -: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 Special Court for the trial of

offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences

Act, Manjeri in M.C.No.7/2021 in SC No.655/2021.

2. The appellants stood as sureties for the accused in

S.C.No.655/2021 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.

3. I have heard Sri. Abdul Shukoor M., the learned Crl.A.No.102/2022

counsel for the appellants and Sri. Aravind V. Mathew, the

learned Public Prosecutor.

4. Admittedly, the appellants stood as sureties for the

accused in S.C.No.655/2021 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.

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The penalty Crl.A.No.102/2022

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