Kerala High Court
1) Kunjayasu vs The State Of Kerala on 15 February, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 26TH MAGHA,
1945
CRL.A NO. 1906 OF 2023
CRIME NO.121/2017 OF Ponnani Police Station, Malappuram
ORDER DATED 20.06.2018 IN M.C.NO.6/2018 IN SC 1162/2017
OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC) III, MANJERI
APPELLANT/COUNTER PETITIONERS:
1) KUNJAYASU,
AGED 69 YEARS
W/O.MOIDEENKUTTY, KARUTHAMOIDEENTAKATH HOUSE ,
PUTHUPONNANI MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679577
BY ADV.
CHERIAN MATHEW POOTHICOTE
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
SEENA C. - P.P
PUSHPALATHA MK.-SR. PP
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 15.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2
Crl.A.No.1906 of 2023
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Crl.A.No.1906 of 2023
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of February, 2024
JUDGMENT
The appellant is the 2nd respondent in M.C.No.6 of
2018. He along with one Shri.Koya were the sureties of
accused No.3 in S.C.No.1162 of 2017. On account of non
appearance of the accused, M.C.No.6 of 2018 was initiated
as per order dated 20.06.2018 and a penalty of Rs.50,000/-
was imposed on each of the sureties. The appellant assails
the correctness and legality of the said order in this appeal
filed under Section 449 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and
the learned Public Prosecutor.
3. From the materials available on record, it is
explicit that there occurred fault on the part of the accused
in appearing before the court and thereby the bond executed
while he was enlarged on bail stood forfeited. Notice was
given to the appellant to show cause, if any, for not
imposing penalty in terms of the conditions in the bail bond.
The appellant did not choose to appear before the trial court
and offer any explanation. In such circumstances, the trial
court imposed penalty of Rs.50,000/-.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant would
submit that an illiterate lady happened to become surety for
three accused in the same case and she remained in dark as
to the failure on the part of the said accused in appearing
before the court. Considering the hapless situation of the
appellant, she deserves leniency. It is submitted by the
learned Public Prosecutor that not only accused No.3, but
the other accused are also now available for trial.
5. On a perusal of the records, it cannot be said that
there was any procedural lapse in imposing the penalty. But
the fact remains that subsequently presence of all the
accused could be procured and the trial proceeded with. The
submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that
illiteracy of the appellant was misused to make her a surety
and that was the reason for her failure to ensure presence of
the accused before the court has substance.
In the said circumstances, I am of the view that the
appellant is entitled leniency in the matter of imposing of
penalty. Accordingly, while confirming the order imposing
penalty, the amount of penalty is reduced. Appeal is allowed
in part and instead of Rs.50,000/-, appellant is directed to
pay Rs.20,000/- as penalty.
Sd/-
P.G. AJITHKUMAR
JUDGE
PV
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN
MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO. 6/2018 IN S.C
NO. 1162/2017 PASSED BY THE ADDL
SESSIONS JUDGE III ON THE 20TH
JUNE,2018
