IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2009 / 1ST ASHADHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1845 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.628/2008 of SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA MC.13/2007 IN CC NO.7/2002 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ALAPPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANTS/CR.PETITIONERS/SURETIES ---------------------------------------------- 1. MURALIDHARA PANICKER, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.VASUDEVAN, SUNIL BHAVAN, MAHADEVIKAD MURI, KARTHIKAPPALLY VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK. 2. PURUSHAN, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.RAMAN, LATHA BHAVAN, THULAMPARAMBU VADAKKUM MURI, HARIPAD VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.G.BENO RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI C.S.HRITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1845 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of June, 2009. ORDER This revision is in challenge of judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Alappuzha in Crl.Appeal No.628 of 2008. Petitioners were sureties of accused in C.C.No.7 of 2002 of the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alappuzha. That case was initiated for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Petitioners executed bond for Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirtyfive thousand only) and secured bail for the accused. But the accused failed to appear in the court concerned nor could petitioners produce him. Thus petitioners violated the terms and conditions of the bond. Thereon bail bonds were cancelled and petitioners were given notice to show cause why penalty should not be imposed on them. They did not turn up. Hence they were ordered to pay penalty at the rate of Rs.25,000/- each. In appeal learned Sessions Judge modified the penalty payable as Rs.15,000/- each. Petitioners are still aggrieved and filed this revision. 2. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners did not get notice in the proceeding of the court below. I am unable to accept that contention. Learned Sessions Judge has stated in the judgment that notices were served on petitioners and that they accepted it. I do not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the orders passed by the courts below holding that petitioners are liable to pay penalty. Crl.R.P.No.1845/2009 2 3. What remained is whether penalty imposed is excessive. Accused is still absconding. Petitioners were not able to ensure his presence though at the time of taking bail they had undertaken to produce the accused as and when required. Learned counsel submits that petitioners are financially very poor. On the facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that aggregate sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) is sufficient penalty. In default of payment, petitioners shall undergo imprisonment in civil jail for one month each. Resultantly this revision is allowed in part to the extent that penalty payable by petitioners is modified as Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) each and in default of payment, they shall undergo imprisonment in civil jail for one month each. Petitioners are granted two months' time from this day to deposit penalty in the trial court. Crl.M.A.No.5579 of 2009 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks