Dilipkumar vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 7069 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                           PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
   FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 27TH JYAISHTA, 1944
                    CRL.A NO.2059 OF 2007
AGAINST ORDER DATED 10/10/2003 IN M.C.No.9 OF 2003 IN S.C.No.
 595 OF 2000 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
                   JUDGE (ADHOC-I), KOLLAM
APPELLANT/COUNTER PETITIONERS 2 & 3/SURETIES:

    1     DILIPKUMAR
          S/O.SARASWATHY AMMA, 260, YADAVA NIVAS, ATTINGAL.
    2     JAYENDHAN
          S/O.APPU VELAYIL VEEDU, CHITTATTINKARA, ATTINGAL.
          BY ADV.
          SRI.J.JAYAKUMAR


RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

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


          SMT.MAYA M.N - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
                                   2

Crl.Appeal No.2059 of 2007

                       P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.
   -----------------------------------------------------------
                Crl.Appeal No.2059 of 2007
   -----------------------------------------------------------
           Dated this the 17th day of June, 2022

                             JUDGMENT

This appeal was filed under Section 449 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973. The appellants were the sureties

of accused No.3 in Sessions Case No.595 of 2000 before the

Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc)-I, Kollam. Since the 3 rd

accused failed to appear before the Court, in obedience to

the conditions in the bail bond, the learned Sessions Judge

forfeited the bond and issued show cause notice to the

accused as well as the sureties. As per the order dated

10.10.2003, the learned Sessions Judge imposed a penalty

of Rs.15,000/- each on the appellants holding that they

failed to appear and show sufficient reasons for not imposing

the penalty. The said order is impugned in this appeal on the

ground that there was procedural violation.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

appellants and also the learned Public Prosecutor.

Crl.Appeal No.2059 of 2007

3. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants

would submit that no opportunity was given to the

appellants for explaining the reason why the appellants could

not produce the 3rd accused. On a perusal of the records, it is

seen that notice issued under Section 446 of the Code, was

served on both the appellants personally. It was after that

the learned Sessions Judge considered the matter. On a

perusal of the records, it is also evident that the appellants

did not appear before the Sessions Court and explain the

reasons for non production of the accused for whom they

stood as sureties or for getting absolved from the penalty.

4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for

the appellants and perused the records, I am of the view

that there occurred no procedural irregularity while passing

the impugned order.

5. The learned Sessions Judge imposed the entire

amount to which the appellants were bound by the bond

executed by them. It appears that the learned Sessions

Judge did not show any indulgence in the matter and

attempted to consider whether there was any genuine

Crl.Appeal No.2059 of 2007

reason for non appearance of appellants before court. It is

seen that the 3rd accused subsequently appeared before the

Court. Taking all such aspects into account, I am of the view

that the penalty amount imposed is liable to be reduced by

giving remission of a part of it.

Accordingly, I allow this appeal in part and the amount

of penalty as per the impugned order is reduced as

Rs.4,000/-(Rupees Four thousand only) each.

Sd/-

P.G. AJITHKUMAR JUDGE PV