Abdul Rahiman vs State Of Kerala
2023 Latest Caselaw 3493 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
      FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1945
                          CRL.A NO. 495 OF 2023
IN M.C.NO.19/2016 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT -
                              I, KASARAGOD


APPELLANT/2nd COUNTER PETITIONER:

            ABDUL RAHIMAN
            AGED 62 YEARS
            S/O.IBRAHIM,
            HOUSE NO.257 A/10 CHENGALA,
            PANCHAYATH MIYADIPALLA, NEKRAJE VILLAGE
            KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671543


            BY ADVS.
            M.SASINDRAN
            P.K.SUBHASH


RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

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

            BY ADV
            SRI.NOUSHAD K.A


     THIS   CRIMINAL   APPEAL   HAVING     COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
24.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 CRL.A.No.495 of 2023



                                       2




                       BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
                      ====================
                          CRL.A.No.495 of 2023
                     =====================
                    Dated this the 24th day of March, 2023


                                 JUDGMENT

Appellant is the 2nd counter petitioner in M.C.No.19/2016 in

S.C.No.22/2015 on the files of the Additional Sessions Judge-I,

Kasaragod. He was one of the sureties for the accused in the above

mentioned Sessions case. After standing as a surety to the accused,

when the accused absconded appellant failed to produce him and the

bonds were forfeited. Thereafter a penalty was imposed upon them by

the impugned order.

2. Though Sri. M.Sasindran, the learned counsel for the

appellant, vehemently contended that the impugned order has not

considered any of the circumstances for imposing penalty and was

issued in a mechanical manner, I am of the view that the order

requires no interference.

3. Primarily, the impugned order is issued on 30.12.2016 and

this appeal has been filed after seven years. Further, even though the

bond amount was Rs.25,000/-, the learned Sessions Judge has

imposed only a penalty of Rs.15,000/- which, in the circumstances is

reasonable.

CRL.A.No.495 of 2023

Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the

view that there is no merit in this appeal, and the same is dismissed.

Sd/-

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE

Jka/24.03.23