Balakrishnan M.P vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 5392 Ker

CRL.A NO. 492 OF 2022              1




               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
             THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
      FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1944
                         CRL.A NO. 492 OF 2022
 AGAINST THE ORDER IN MC 15/2021 OF SPECIAL COURT FOR THE TRIAL
 OF OFFENCES AGAINST CHILDREN (ADDL.SESSIONS COURT I), MANJERI
APPELLANTS:

      1      BALAKRISHNAN M.P, AGED 35 YEARS
             S/O ARAMUGHAN, MANGATTUKUZHI HOUSE,
             MAKHAMPADI, PATTIKKAD, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK,
             MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,, PIN - 679325
      2      ABDUL HAMEED, AGED 45 YEARS
             S/O MARAKKAR KUTTY HAJI, KURIYATT,
             VETTAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, KEEZHATTUR, MAKHAMPADI,
             PATTIKKAD, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK,
             MALAPPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 679325
             BY ADVS.
             P.SAMSUDIN
             M.ANUROOP
             LIRA A.B.
RESPONDENT:

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

             BY SMT.BINDU O.V - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR


      THIS    CRIMINAL   APPEAL   HAVING    COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
20.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 CRL.A NO. 492 OF 2022            2




                              JUDGMENT

This is an appeal filed under Section 449 of Cr.P.C against the

order passed by the Special Court for the trial of offences against

Children (Additional Sessions Court I), Manjeri in M.C.No.15/2021 in

S.C.No.75/2015 dated 14.12.2021.

2. The appellants stood as sureties for the accused in

S.C.No.75/2015 by executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- each. Since the

accused failed to appear at the court below, their bail bond was

cancelled and proceedings under Section 446 of Cr.P.C was initiated.

Even though, notices were issued to the appellants, they did not

appear at the court below. Hence, the court below as per the

impugned order imposed a penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- each. The said

order is under challenge in this appeal.

3. I have heard Smt.Lira A.B, the learned counsel for the

appellants and Smt.Bindu O.V, the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. It is not in dispute that the appellants stood as sureties for

the accused in S.C.No.75/2015 by executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/-

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. A

mere failure on the part of the accused to appear at the court on the

date of hearing of the case would result in automatic forfeiture of the

bond. Thus, the court below was absolutely justified in treating the

bond executed by the appellants as forfeited.

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

the court below. The court below imposed the entire bond amount

of Rs.1,00,000/- each as penalty. The learned counsel for the

appellants submitted that subsequently the accused appeared and he

was released on bail on executing fresh bond. The learned counsel

for the appellants further submitted that the appellants are poor and

they are not in a position to pay the penalty imposed. Considering

the entire facts and circumstances of the case, 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

amount imposed by the court below vide the impugned order is

reduced to Rs.20,000/- each, which shall be paid by the appellants

within a period of one month, failing which the legal consequences

shall follow.

Sd/-

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE ab

APPENDIX OF CRL.A 492/2022

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER DT. 14-12-2021 IN MC 15/2021 OF ADDL SESSIONS COURT-I MANJERI

RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES : NIL