Kerala High Court
Ellias Kunju vs State Of Kerala on 21 May, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1946
CRL.APPEAL NO. 392 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13.11.2023 IN MC NO.25 OF 2023 OF
THE FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT, ATTINGAL
APPELLANTS/COUNTER PETITIONERS:
1 ELLIAS KUNJU
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O MUHAMMED ISMAIL. EMR HOUSE, CRESCENT SCHOOL
ROAD, KOLLURKONAM, PERINGAMALA P.O, PIN -
695563.
2 REENATH BEEVI,
AGED 42 YEARS,
W/O ELLIAS KUNJU, EMR HOUSE, CRESCENT SCHOOL
ROAD, KOLLURKONAM, PERINGAMALA P.O, PIN -
695563.
BY ADVS.
G.RANJU MOHAN
M.SANTHI
PYARIN B. KURUVITHADAM
THEERTHA NAIR A.P.
SREEHARI M.B.
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031.
SMT.PUSHPALATHA M.K., SR GP.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL
HEARING ON 21.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
Crl.Appeal No.392 of 2024
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Crl.Appeal No.392 of 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of May, 2024
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal filed under Section 449 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code).
2. The appellants were ordered to pay Rs.50,000/- as
penalty in a proceedings initiated against them under Section 446
of the Code. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have filed
this appeal.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the
learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The appellants were the sureties of the accused in
S.C.No.1700 of 2021 on the files of the Fast Track Special Court,
Attingal. Following non-appearance of the accused, notices were
issued to the appellants to show cause why proceedings under
Section 446 of the Code should not be initiated against them.
They appeared before the trial court. But no explanation was
offered. It is seen that M.C.No.25 of 2023 was initiated on
13.11.2023. The trial court on holding that the appellants
although appeared before that court, failed to offer any
explanation, imposed the penalty of Rs.50,000/- each, which
was the bond amount. The learned counsel for the appellants
would submit that soon after the impugned order, the
appellants themselves produced the accused before the trial
court and therefore the appellants are entitled to be
exonerated from the liability.
5. The impugned order was rendered on 13.11.2023. It
is seen from Annexure A2 proceedings that the accused
surrendered before the trial court on 04.12.2023. All the same, it
was after giving sufficient opportunity to produce the accused,
the trial court imposed the penalty. But subsequent to the
impugned order alone the accused surrendered before the court.
Therefore, it cannot be said that the impugned order is vitiated in
law. However, considering the fact that without much delay the
accused surrendered before the trial court, be it on his own
volition or at the instance of the appellant, a lenient view is
liable to be taken in the matter of imposing the penalty. In
the circumstances, the penalty can be reduced to Rs.15,000/-
each.
The appeal is allowed in part. The appellants are ordered to
pay Rs.15,000/- each as penalty.
Sd/-
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE
dkr
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
13/11/2023 IN M.C.NO.25/2023 IN
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE SCREENSHOT OF E-COURT
PROCEEDINGS
