Kerala High Court
Karthiyayini vs State Of Kerala on 26 May, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 5TH JYAISHTA, 1944
CRL.A NO. 529 OF 2022
CRIME NO.323/2016 OF Vellarikundu Police Station, Kasargod
ORDER IN MC 97/2017 IN SC 754/2016 DATED 06/06/2018 OF
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT - I, KASARAGOD
APPELLANTS/COUNTER APPELLANTS:
1 KARTHAYAYINI
AGED 54 YEARS
H NO 359, PADAYAMKAALU, DARKAS, MALLOM VILLAGE,
VELLARIKUNDU TALUK, KASARGOD, PIN - 671533
2 BABU K.
AGED 37 YEARS
PADAYAMKAALU, DARKAS, MALLOM VILLAGE, VALLARIKUNDU
TALUK, KASARGOD, PIN - 671533
BY ADV RAMESH .P
RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
SMT. SHEEBA THOMAS, PP
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
26.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl.A.No.529/2022
-:2:-
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 26th day of May, 2022
This appeal has been preferred under Section 449 of Cr.P.C
challenging the order passed by the Additional Sessions Court I,
Kasaragod under Section 446 of Cr.P.C. in M.C.No.97/2017 in
S.C.No.754/2016.
2. The appellants herein stood as sureties for the
accused in S.C.No.754/2016 by executing a bond for ₹50,000/-
each. Thereafter, the accused failed to appear at the court
below. Hence non bailable warrant was issued against him, yet
his presence could not be secured. Hence, the court below
initiated proceedings under Section 446 of Cr.P.C against the
appellants. Even though opportunity was given to the appellants
to produce the accused, they failed to produce him. Hence, the
court below forfeited the bond and ₹25,000/- each was imposed
as penalty as per the impugned order. The said order is under
challenge in this appeal.
Crl.A.No.529/2022
3. I have heard Sri. Ramesh, the learned counsel for the
appellants and Smt. T.V. Neema, the learned Senior Public
Prosecutor.
4. Admittedly, the appellants stood as sureties for the
accused in S.C.No.754/2016 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 ₹25,000/- each as penalty.
The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
appellants belong to SC/ST community and are coolie workers
and they are unable to mobilise ₹25,000/- each imposed as
penalty. Considering the fact that the appellants are coolies and
also the fact that the 1 st appellant is a lady, I am of the view that
Crl.A.No.529/2022
the penalty imposed can be reduced to ₹5,000/- each.
In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The penalty
imposed vide impugned order is reduced to ₹5,000/- (Rupees
five thousand only) 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
Crl.A.No.529/2022
APPENDIX OF CRL.A 529/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
AnnexureA1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF
THE HONOURABLE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
COURT-I, KASARGOD
AnnexureA2 TRUE COPY OF THE CASTE CERTIFICATE OF
THE 1ST APPELLANT DATED 16/01/2022
AnnexureA3 TRUE COPY OF THE CASTE CERTIFICATE OF
THE 2ND APPELLANT DATED 16/01/2022
AnnexureA4 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN M.C. NO.
97/2017 (S.C. NO. 754/2016)OF THE ADDL.
SESSIONS JUDGE-I, KASARGOD DATED
06/06/2018
