Rajan vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 6583 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
   THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 19TH JYAISHTA, 1944
                       CRL.A NO. 852 OF 2021
M.C.NO.27/2020 IN SC 1115/2016 OF DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT,
                              THRISSUR
APPELLANT/COUNTER PETITIONER 1:

             RAJAN,
             AGED 64 YEARS,
             S/O. KOCHAKKAN, KAITHAVALAPPIL HOUSE,
             VELLIKULANGARA DESOM, KUTTICHIRA VILLAGE, THRISSUR
             DISTRICT-680724.

             BY ADV.RAPHAEL THEKKAN


RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

             STATE OF KERALA,
             REP. BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
             CHALAKUDY-680307.



             SMT SHEEBA THOMAS, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR


     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.06.2022,     THE   COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 CRL.APPEAL NO. 852 OF 2021        2



                               JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal has been preferred under Section 449

of the Cr.P.C, challenging the order passed by Sessions Judge,

Thrissur in M.C.No.27 of 2020 under Section 446 of the Cr.P.C.

2. The peti tioner is one of the sureties of the accused in

S.C.No.1115 of 2016. He executed a bond for Rs.50,000/-.

The Sessions Court, Thrissur (for short 'the court below')

cancelled the bail of the accused and arrest warrant was issued

against him. Proceedings were initiated against the sureties

including the appellant under Section 446 of the Cr.P.C. and

notice was issued. Though the appellant herein received notice,

he did not appear. So the court below treated the bond executed

by the appellant as forfeited and imposed a penalty of

Rs.50,000/- as per the impugned order. The appellant

challenges the said order.

3. I have heard both sides.

4. It is not in dispute that the appellant stood as surety for

the accused in S.C.No.1115 of 2016 by executing a bond of

Rs.50,000/-. It is also not in dispute that the bail bond of the

accused was cancelled and a non-baliable warrant was issued

against him. Even though the appellant received notice, he did

not appear at the court below. Mere failure on the part of the

accused to appear at the court below on the date fixed for

hearing would result in automatic forfeiture of the bond executed

by the appellant. So the court below was absolutely justified in

treating the bond executed by the appellant as forfeited.

5. The next question is the quantum of penalty imposed by

the court below. The court below imposed the entire bond

amount as penalty. The learned counsel for the appellant

submits that the appellant is a poor coolie and he has no

sufficient means to pay the huge penalty amount imposed.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the

view that the penalty amount can be reduced to Rs.15,000/-.

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The penalty

amount imposed by the court below is reduced to Rs.15,000/-

(Rupees fifteen thousand only). The payment, if any, already

made by the appellant shall be set off.

Sd/-

DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE DSV/09.06.2022

APPENDIX OF CRL.A 852/2021

APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES:

Annexure I TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 7.1.2020. Annexure II CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.2.2020 PASSED BY THE SESSIONS JUDGE, THRISSUR. Annexure III TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 20.10.2021 FILED BY THE APPELLANT.

Annexure IV A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.10.2021.

Annexure V TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.10.2021 REPORTED IN 2017 KHC 981 (SAHADEVAN AND ANOTHER V. STATE OF KERALA).

Annexure VI TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.7.2021 REPORTED IN 2021 (4) KHC 372 (VALSAN AND ANOTHER V. STATE OF KERALA).

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL