Saji vs State Of Kerala
2023 Latest Caselaw 690 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                              PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
 THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 22ND POUSHA, 1944
                      CRL.A NO. 1355 OF 2022
    AGAINST THE ORDER IN MC 2538/2017 IN SC 577/2017 OF
   ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT/2ND SURETY:

         SAJI, AGED 44 YEARS
         S/O CHACKO,KOORLIYIL HOUSE, PUTTUMANOOR,
         PUTHENCRUZ,ERNAKULAM, PIN 682308

         BY ADV A.S.SASIDHARAN


RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

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

         SMT. SHEEBA THOMAS, PP


     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.01.2023,    THE   COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 Crl.A.No.1355/2022

                                -:2:-




                          JUDGMENT

Dated this the 12th day of January, 2023

This appeal has been preferred under Section 449 of Cr.P.C

challenging the order passed by the Additional District and

Sessions Court, Ernakulam (for short 'the court below) in

M.C.No.2538/2017 in S.C.No.577/2017 dated 4.4.2019.

2. The appellant stood as one of the sureties for the

accused in S.C.No.577/2017 on the file of the court below by

executing a bail bond for ₹50,000/-. Thereafter, the accused

absconded and non bailable warrant was issued against him.

Hence, the court below initiated proceedings under Section 446

of Cr.P.C against the sureties including the appellant. Even

though notice has been issued to the appellant and the other

surety, they did not appear at the court below. Hence, the court

below treated the bond executed by the sureties as forfeited and

₹50,000/- each was imposed as penalty as per the impugned

order. The said order is under challenge in this appeal. Crl.A.No.1355/2022

3. I have heard Sri. A.S. Sasidharan, the learned counsel

for the appellant and Smt. Sheeba Thomas, the learned Public

Prosecutor.

4. It is not in dispute that the appellant stood as one of

the sureties by executing a bond for ₹50,000/-. 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 treating the

bond executed by the sureties as forfeited.

5. The next question is regarding the penalty. The court

below imposed ₹50,000/- each as penalty. The learned counsel

for the appellant submits that the appellant does not have

sufficient income to pay the penalty. Considering the fact that

the appellant is a poor man, I am of the view that the penalty

imposed can be reduced to ₹15,000/-.

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The penalty

imposed vide the impugned order is reduced to ₹15,000/- Crl.A.No.1355/2022

(Rupees fifteen thousand only), which shall be paid by the

appellant within two months from today, failing which legal

consequences shall follow.

Sd/-

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE kp