Anandavalli K vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 6079 Ker

Crl.A.No.534/2021                     1




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                              PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
   WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 11TH JYAISHTA, 1944
                       CRL.A NO. 534 OF 2021
   AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 1203/2016 OF I ADDITIONAL
 DISTRICT COURT & I ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
                                  KOLLAM
APPELLANT/2nd COUNTER PETITIONER:

             ANANDAVALLI K.,
             AGED 65 YEARS,
             W/O.SASIDHARAN, OCHERI KIZHAKKATHIL,
             KANNIMEL CHERIRI, MARUTHADI P.O,
             SAKTHIKULANGARA, KOLLAM.

             BY ADVS.
             C.RAJENDRAN
             B.K.GOPALAKRISHNAN



RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

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


      THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.A.No.534/2021                  2




                         JUDGMENT

The appellant herein, has filed this Criminal Appeal being

aggrieved by the proceedings initiated against him, under Section

446 of the Cr.P.C. The appellant along with another, stood as

surety to the accused in S.C.No.1203 of 2016 on the file of the 1 st

Addl.Sessions Judge, Kollam. The aforesaid case was registered

against the said accused for the offences punishable under Sections

3(a) read with Section 4, Section 5(1) read with Section 6 of

POCSO Act,2012 and also under Section 3(1)(i), (iii) and Section

3(2) (Vc) of SC/ST Amendment Act, 2015. Later, the accused

absconded and even though notices were issued to the appellant

and the other surety, they neither appeared nor produced the

accused before the court. Proceedings were initiated in such

circumstances and the same culminated in the order dated

18.01.2020 in M.C.No.46 of 2019 by which the appellant and the

other surety were directed to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees

twenty five thousand only) each as penalty. This appeal is filed in

such circumstances.

2. Heard both sides.

3. Even though the learned counsel for the appellant challenges

the sustainability of the finding of the learned Sessions Judge,

imposing penalty, considering the facts and circumstances of the

case, I do not find any merit in the said contention. Therefore, the

said finding is confirmed. However, I find that the penalty imposed

upon the appellant is on the higher side. In Sahadevan &

Another v. State of Kerala [2017 KHC 981] : [2018 (1) KLD

87], it is held by this Court that the entire amount of the bond need

not be imposed as penalty upon the sureties. Considering the

principle laid down by this Court in the aforesaid judgment, I am of

the view that some indulgence can be shown with respect to the

penalty. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I

deem it appropriate to fix Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only)

as reasonable amount of penalty.

In the result, this Crl.Appeal is allowed in part by modifying

the amount of penalty as Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only)

instead of Rs.25,000/- as ordered by the learned Sessions Judge.

The aforesaid payment shall be made by the appellant within a

period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment. In case the payment is not made, the learned Sessions

Judge shall be at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings for

enforcing the same.

Sd/-

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

JUDGE

DG/2.6.22