IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 4TH DECEMBER 2008 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3945 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.473/2006 of II ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD CC.226/2002 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, PALAKKAD (MC 13/06) .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANTS/COUNTER PETITIONERS ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. KANDAN, S/O.CHANGALI, AVANJIPADAM, AMBIKAPURAM, PALAKKAD. 2. RUGMANI, W/O.CHELLAPPAN, AVINJIPADAM AMBIKAPURAM, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.BALAGOPAL RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETITIONER --------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M. KAMAPPU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== Crl.R.P. NO.3945 OF 2008 =========================== Dated this the 4th day of December,2008 ORDER Revision petitioners are the sureties to the accused in C.C.226/2002 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Palakkad. The charge against the accused was that he committed the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. On the bond executed by the revision petitioners, the accused was released. Under the bond they agreed to produce the accused as and when called for. When the accused failed to appear, notice was issued by the Magistrate directing petitioners to produce the accused or show cause why the bond shall not be forfeited and penalty imposed. They appeared before the Magistrate on 27.3.2006 and sought time. Time was granted. On the adjourned day they did not appear and they did not show any cause. Learned Magistrate forfeited the bond amount and imposed penalty of Rs.5000/- CRRP3945/2008 2 each from the revision petitioners. They challenged that order before Sessions Court, Palakkad in Crl.A.473/2006. Learned Additional Sessions Judge finding that there is no reason to interfere with the order dismissed the appeal. It is challenged in the revision. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Learned counsel submitted that C.C.226/2002 was later settled between the parties and the accused and complainant were permitted to compound the offence in Crl.R.P.908/2008 and in such circumstance, the order passed by the learned Magistrate as confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge is to be set aside. Learned counsel also argued that sufficient time was not granted to the revision petitioners to produce the accused. 4. It was on the undertaking of the petitioners in the bond that they will produce the accused as and when called, the accused was CRRP3945/2008 3 released on bail. When revision petitioners were directed to produce the accused after conviction as the accused did not appear, revision petitioners appeared and sought time. But when adjournment was granted, they did not appear on the adjourned day. They did not produce the accused and did not show any cause. In such circumstance, revision petitioners cannot be heard to contend that they did not get sufficient opportunity. Learned counsel then submitted that, as the case against the accused was settled and compounded, leniency may be shown. 5. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Magistrate is modified by reducing the penalty to Rs.2500/- each. Revision is allowed in part. The order passed by the Magistrate in MC 13/2006 as confirmed by Sessions Judge in Crl.A.473/2006 is modified directing petitioners to pay a penalty of Rs.2500/- each. Revision petitioners are granted CRRP3945/2008 4 two months time to pay penalty from today. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006