Paul vs State Of Kerala
2023 Latest Caselaw 75 Ker

Crl.A.No.19/2023                        1



              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                   PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
    FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 16TH POUSHA, 1944
                           CRL.A NO. 19 OF 2023
       AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTSC 103/2017 OF SUB COURT,
                                 PERUMBAVOOR
APPELLANTS/1ST AND 2ND COUNTER PETITIONER:

     1       PAUL,
             AGED 59 YEARS,
             RESIDING AT NJALIYAN HOUSE,
             THABORE KARA,
             MOOKKANNUR, ANGAMALY, PIN - 683 577.

     2       VELAYUDHAN,
             AGED 52 YEARS,
             S/O.CHATHAN,
             CHERAMBILLY HOUSE,
             THABORE, MOOKKANNUR, ANGAMALY, PIN - 683 577.

             BY ADV.AJEESH M UMMER


RESPONDENT/S:

             STATE OF KERALA,
             REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
             HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031.

             SRI.VIPIN NARARYAN- PUBLIC PROSECUTOR


      THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.01.2023,        THE   COURT   ON   THE    SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 Crl.A.No.19/2023                     2



                          JUDGMENT

The appellants are the counter petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.2 of

2018 in S.C.No.103 of 2017 on the file of the Assistant Sessions

Court, Perumbavoor. The aforesaid proceedings were initiated

against the appellants under Section 446 of Cr.P.C. Appellants

were the sureties of the accused in S.C.No.103 of 2017 on the file

of Assistant Sessions Court, Perumbavoor. The accused therein

was released on bail on the basis of a bond executed by the

appellants herein for an amount of Rs.25,000/- each. Later, the

accused failed to appear before the court and even though notices

were served on the appellants they could not ensure the presence

of the accused. Proceedings were initiated in such circumstances

and it culminated in the impugned order by which penalty of

Rs.25,000/- each was imposed upon the appellants. This appeal is

submitted in such circumstances, challenging the same.

2. Heard Sri.Ajeesh M.Ummer, learned counsel for the

appellants and Sri.Vipin Narayan, learned Public Prosecutor for

the State.

3. After considering all the relevant aspects, I am of the

view that, no interference can be made on the proceedings

initiated under Section 446 Cr.P.C. as against the appellants, in

view of the fact that the appellant could not comply with the

conditions of the bond by ensuring the presence of the accused

before the court. However, the learned counsel for the appellants

seeks for a lenient view with regard to the penalty imposed upon

the appellants. It is pointed out that the appellants are coolies and

the amount of penalty imposed is beyond their means. It is also

submitted that, they stood as sureties of the accused only because

of the reason that he happened to be a neighbour.

4. After considering all the relevant aspects, even though I

am not inclined to interfere with the initiation of proceedings, I

am of the view that some indulgence can be shown with regard to

the amount of penalty. In Sahadevan and Another v. State of

Kerala [2017 KHC 981], this Court held that, it is not necessary

to impose penalty under Section 446 Cr.P.C., in tune with the

amount of bond in all the cases.

5. After considering all the relevant inputs, I am inclined

to show some indulgence as regards the amount of penalty

concerned.

6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it

appropriate to fix the amount of penalty as Rs.15,000/- each

instead of Rs.25,000/- each as ordered by the Assistant Sessions

Court. In the result, this Crl.Appeal is allowed. Order dated

29.06.2022 in S.C.No.103 of 2017 passed by the Assistant Sessions

Court, Perumbavoor shall stand modified by reducing the penalty

as Rs.15,000/- each instead of Rs.25,000/- each as ordered by the

learned Assistant Sessions Court. The said amount shall be

deposited by the appellants within a period of one month from the

date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, failing which, it shall be

open for the learned Magistrate to initiate appropriate

proceedings against the appellants.

Sd/-

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

JUDGE DG/6.1.23