Kerala High Court
Rama vs State Of Kerala on 28 June, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 7TH ASHADHA, 1946
CRL.A NO. 1002 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25.07.2019 IN M.C.NO.19 OF 2019 PASSED BY
THE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE, ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT IN
S.C. NO.663 OF 2017
APPELLANTS/COUNTER PETITIONERS:
1 RAMA
AGED 53 YEARS
W/O. PRABHAN, MADATHIL VEETTIL, KUMARAPURAM VILLAGE,
KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK, FROM KOCHUVEETTIL,
MULAKKUZHA VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 689 504.
2 KAVITHA
AGED 40 YEARS
D/O. AMBUJAKSHI, S. K. NIVAS, KARUVATTA PANCHAYATH,
KARUVATTA MURI, FROM KAVITHABHAVAN,
POTHAPPALLY VADAKKUM MURI, KUMARAPURAM VILLAGE,
KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690548.
BY ADVS.
J.R.PREM NAVAZ
SHRI.SUMEEN S.
SMT.PARVATHY S.KRISHNAN
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031.
MAYA M.N. - PP
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
28.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.A. NO. 1002 OF 2019
2
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.
--------------------------------------------------
Crl. Appeal No.1002 of 2019
---------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 28th day of June, 2024
JUDGMENT
The appellants are counter petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 in
M.C. No.19 of 2019 in S.C. No.663 of 2017 on the files of
the Sessions Court, Alappuzha. As per the impugned order
they were directed to pay penalty of Rs.50,000/- each in a
proceedings initiated under Section 446 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973. Aggrieved by the said order, the
appellants have filed this appeal invoking the provisions of
Section 449 of the Code.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and
the learned Public Prosecutor.
3. The counter petitioner No.1 was the accused in
S.C. No.663 of 2017. He was indicted of an offence of
murder. Since he failed to appear before the court in terms
of the conditions in the bail and consequent forfeiture of
Crl.A. NO. 1002 OF 2019
the bond, the proceedings were initiated and notices were
given to the appellants. It is seen that the appellants did
not choose to appear before the trial court.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants would
submit that, in fact, the appellants appeared before the
trial court and offered to produce the accused. I am not
venturing to consider the controversy, whether or not the
appellants appeared before the trial court. Even if they
appeared and undertook to produce the accused, they did
not produce the accused. It is the submission of the
learned counsel for the appellants that the accused
surrendered before the trial court on 27.03.2024. That
implies that the appellants did not act in accordance with
their undertaking ever before passing the impugned order.
In the circumstances, no infirmity can be attributed to the
impugned order.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants would
submit that the 2nd appellant is the mother of the accused
and because of the appellants' pecuniary and physical
inabilities they could not procure the presence of the
Crl.A. NO. 1002 OF 2019
accused. The appellants are persons living in penury and
the amount of penalty imposed as per the impugned order
is too exorbitant to be paid by them.
6. Of course, the appellants have executed a bond
binding themselves to pay Rs.50,000/-. In the event of
violation, their financial stringency is not a reason to
exonerate them or to reduce the amount of penalty.
However, a humanitarian approach in imposing the
penalty is required, especially when, the appellants are
persons living in penury.
7. Taking all facts and circumstances arising from
the materials on record, I am of the view that a penalty of
Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) each will
be sufficient.
Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part and the
amount of penalty is reduced to Rs.25,000/- each.
Sd/-
P.G. AJITHKUMAR
JUDGE
SK
