Radha And Another vs State Of Kerala
2024 Latest Caselaw 25896 Ker

Kerala High Court

Radha And Another vs State Of Kerala on 30 September, 2024

CRL.A NO. 1668 OF 2007

                                   1




                                                       2024:KER:72776
                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
        MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 8TH ASWINA, 1946
                         CRL.A NO. 1668 OF 2007
        AGAINST THE M.C. NO. 12 OF 2007 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT COURT, FAST TRACK (ADHOC), MAVELIKKARA       S.C. NO. 477 OF
2003.
APPELLANTS/COUNTER PETITIONERS/SURETIES:

    1        RADHA, KALATHIL PADEETATHIL,
             VATHIKULAM MURI, THEKKEKARA VILLAGE,, MAVELIKARA TALUK.

    2        SOMAN PANOOR PADINJARETHIL
             PALLICKAL NADUVILE MURI,, BHARANICKAVU VILLAGE,,
             MAVELIKARA TALUK.


             BY ADV SRI.G.ANANTHANARAYANAN

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

             STATE OF KERALA
             PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM.


OTHER PRESENT:

             PP-SRI.M.C.ASHI

     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING                ON
30.09.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 CRL.A NO. 1668 OF 2007

                                    2




                                                          2024:KER:72776
                              JUDGMENT

This appeal is at the instance of the sureties of the 2nd

accused in S.C.No. 477 of 2003 on the file of Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Fast Track (Adhoc), Mavelikkara, challenging the

order in MC No. 12 of 2007 dated 01.09.2007, imposing penalty of

Rs.10,000/- each, after forfeiting their bail bond.

2. The appellants would contend that, though they took the

2nd accused in S.C.No. 477 of 2003 on bail, subsequently, he left for

Delhi on getting an employment and later he went abroad. So, in

spite of notice received from the trial court, they failed to produce

the 2nd accused before that court. Learned trial court, after

forfeiting the bail bond, straight away imposed penalty on them

without issuing notice to show cause as to why the bond amount

shall not be paid. So, the order is illegal, and it is liable to be set

aside.

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Public

Prosecutor.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that,

though notice was received from the trial court asking them to CRL.A NO. 1668 OF 2007

2024:KER:72776 produce the 2 nd accused, they could not produce him as he went

abroad. The appellants applied for time to produce the 2nd accused

and ten days time was granted by the trial court, but they failed to

produce the accused within that time frame. Again, the 2nd

appellant filed an application for further extension, but it was

rejected. So the court was convinced that there was violation of

the conditions of the bail bond, and so the bond was forfeited. But

thereafter, no notice was seen given to the appellants under

Section 446(1) Cr.P.C., calling upon them to pay penalty thereof or

to show cause why it should not be paid.

5. The impugned order in M.C.No. 12 of 2007 shows that after

forfeiting the bail bond, the trial court straightaway imposed fine of

Rs.10,000/- each on the sureties without issuing a notice as

envisaged under Section 446(1) Cr.P.C. asking them to pay the

penalty or to show cause why the bond amount shall not be paid.

So the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the matter

can be remanded to the trial court, so that notice can be issued to

the appellants/sureties asking them to show cause why the bond CRL.A NO. 1668 OF 2007

2024:KER:72776 amount shall not be paid, and thereafter the trial court can impose

penalty afresh.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that, the

sessions case was of the year 2003, and the MC was registered

against the sureties in the year 2007. After forfeiting the bail bond

executed by the appellants, the 2nd accused appeared before the

trial court and he was released on bail, and after trial, he was

acquitted also in the main case. So, after a long gap of about 20-21

years, it may not be proper to remand the matter for issuing notice

and for imposing penalty afresh.

8. Adverting to the facts and circumstances, as pointed out by

learned counsel for the appellants, this court is not inclined to

remand the matter for fresh consideration.

In the result, the appeal stands allowed setting aside the

impugned order.

SD/-

SOPHY THOMAS JUDGE RMV