Ashraf vs State Of Kerala
2023 Latest Caselaw 8260 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                   PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
         TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 10TH SRAVANA, 1945
                            CRL.A NO. 1078 OF 2023
          MC 2/2023 OF FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT, PARAPPANANGADI
         SC 609/2017 OF FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT, PARAPPANANGADI
APPELLANTS/COUNTER PETITIONERS:

     1       ASHRAF
             AGED 49 YEARS
             S/O. HASSAN KUTTY, AGED 49 YEARS, MANJARODAN THADATHIL
             HOUSE, CHENAKKALANGADI P.O., TIRURANGADI TALUK,
             MALAPPURAM, PIN - 673636
     2       SAINABA
             AGED 44 YEARS
             W/O. ASHRAF, D/O. PAVAKULATH KUNHAMMED, THADATHIL HOUSE,
             CHENAKKALANGADI P.O., TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM,
             PIN - 673636
             BY ADV K.RAKESH


RESPONDENT/STATE:

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


             BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M P PRASANTH



     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.08.2023,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 CRL.A NO. 1078 OF 2023          2



                           JUDGMENT

Dated this the 1st day of August, 2023

This appeal has been filed under Section 449 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure and the appellants, who are sureties to the

accused in S.C.No.609/2017 on the files of the Special Judge,

FTSC, Parappanangadi (Manjeri Sessions Division), impugns

order, dated 27.3.2023 in M.C.No.2/2023 in the above case,

whereby, the learned Magistrate imposed penalty to the tune of

Rs.50,000/- each, against the appellants, on finding forfeiture of

bond, due to absence of the accused before the trial court, in

obedience of the bail bond executed by him and the appellants

herein together.

2. Insofar as the order is concerned, the learned counsel

for the appellants is satisfied with reduction in the amount.

3. As far as forfeiture of bond is concerned, forfeiture

took place when the sureties fail to show cause sufficient reasons

for non-appearance of the accused which led to forfeiture of the

bond. Therefore, the order impugned, directing payment of

penalty, does not require any interference. However, in the

matter of penalty, in consideration of financial crisis, that has

been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants, the same

can be reduced to Rs.20,000/- each.

4. In the result, this Criminal Appeal stands allowed in

part. The penalty ordered by the trial court, as per the impugned

order, stands reduced to Rs.20,000/- each, with a direction to the

appellants to pay the same, within a period of 15 days from today

and the appellants are directed to appear before the trial court

on 16.8.2023, to pay the fine amount.

5. It is specifically ordered that, if the appellants fail to

pay the amount on 16.8.2023, as ordered, the impugned order

shall stand revived and in such event, the appellants shall pay the

entire amount, as per the impugned order and the trial court is

directed to realise the penalty as per the impugned order, as

such.

Sd/-

A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE Bb