Shaja S vs State Of Kerala
2023 Latest Caselaw 699 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. 1388 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER IN MC 3/2020 IN SC 417/2017 OF ADDITIONAL
     SESSIONS COURT I, (SPECIAL COURT), PATHANAMTHITTA
APPELLANT/COUNTER PETITIONER NO.2:

         SHAJA S, AGED 40 YEARS
         W/O VANEESH, VELLAMKUNNEL HOUSE, VALAVOOR,
         VALLICHIRA, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,
         PIN - 686674

         BY ADV DINNY THOMAS



RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

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

         BY SMT. SHEEBA THOMAS, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR




     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.01.2023,    THE   COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 Crl.A.No.1388/2022

                                -: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 Sessions Court I,

(Special Court), Pathanamthitta (for short 'the court below) in

M.C.No.3/2020 in S.C.No.417/2017 dated 2/3/2022.

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

accused in S.C.No.417/2017 on the file of the court below by

executing a bail bond for ₹1,00,000/-. 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.1388/2022

3. I have heard Sri. Dinny Thomas, 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 ₹1,00,000/-. 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 belongs to SC

community and she does not have sufficient income to pay the

penalty. Considering the fact that the appellant is a poor lady, 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 Crl.A.No.1388/2022

imposed vide the impugned order is reduced to ₹15,000/-

(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 Crl.A.No.1388/2022

APPENDIX OF CRL.A 1388/2022

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

Annexure A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-1 (SPECIAL COURT), PATHANAMTHITTA IN MC NO: 3/2020 IN S.C NO: 417/2017 DATED 02/03/2022

Annexure B CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THE COURT OF FAST TRACK SPECIAL JUDGE, PATHANAMTHITTA IN S.C NO:417/2017 DATED 25/01/2021