Anandan vs State Of Kerala
2023 Latest Caselaw 8262 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. 1107 OF 2023
 MC NO.4/2022 IN ST 75/2019 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -
                             II, OTTAPPALAM
APPELLANTS/COUNTER PETITIONERS:

     1       ANANDAN
             AGED 54 YEARS
             S/O. SIVASANKARAN, PUNNOOKKIL, KOTTATHARA, ESWARAMANGALAM
             P.O, THAVANUR, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN -
             679573
     2       SARFUDHEEN
             AGED 46 YEARS
             S/O.UNNEEN, PARAPPIL HOUSE, BEERANCHIRA, CODACAL P.O,
             TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-, PIN - 676108
             BY ADV A.HAROON RASHEED


RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

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


             SR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P G MANU



     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.08.2023,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 CRL.A NO. 1107 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.T.No.75/2019 on the files of

the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - II, Ottapalam,

impugns order, dated 1.7.2022 in M.C.No.4/2022 in the

above case, whereby, the learned Magistrate imposed

penalty to the tune of Rs.25,000/- 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.10,000/- 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.10,000/- 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

APPENDIX OF CRL.A 1107/2023

PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES Annexure 1 CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER DATED 1/7/2022 IN M.C. NO: 04/2022 IN S.T. NO. 75/2019 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE- 11, OTTAPALAM RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES NIL

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE