IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2009 / 13TH MAGHA 1930 CRL.A.No. 269 of 2009() ----------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN MC 63/08 IN SC.1321/2008 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT(S): COUNTER PETITIONERS 2 & 3 --------------------------------------- 1. NEPOLIEN, S/O.GEORGE,SUDHARMA VILASAM, KODUVILA, EAST KALLADA. 2. VICTORIYA, W/O.NEPOLIAN,SUDHARAMA VILASAM, KODUVILA, EAST KALLADA. BY ADV. SRI.PRATHEESH.P SRI.S.SUDHEESHKAR SRI. K.SIJU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. P.P. SRI C.M.KAMMAPPU. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------------- CRL.A. No.269 of 2009 ---------------------------------------------- Dated, 2nd February, 2009. JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the sureties in S.C.No.1321/2008 challenging the order passed by the court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, (Adhoc) II, Kollam in M.C.63/2008. The sole accused, who is the son of the sureties was released on bail on the basis of the surety ship of the appellants, in an abkari offence. As the accused failed to appear in violation of the bond conditions and to face the charge, the above case was registered on 20.10.2005. The appellants failed to secure the presence of the accused who is none other than their son. Hence, by order dated 7.11.2008, the trial court ordered penalty against each of the appellants at the rate of Rs.7500/- and directed to remit the amount within 30 days from the date of the order though the bond amount was Rs.15,000/-. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and also the learned Pubic Prosecutor. CRL.A. No.269/09 -:2:- 3. The learned counsel submitted that the appellants are cancer patients and they are not in a position to pay the amount. It is pertinent to note that the absconding accused is the son of the appellants and the impugned order was passed on 7.11.2008 even though the M.C. was registered on 20.10.2005. No serious attempt was made to procure the presence of the accused. It is also discernible from the order that though the bond amount was Rs.15,000/- as per the impugned order under challenge, the penalty imposed is only Rs.7500/-. I find no reason to interfere with the order under challenge. Accordingly, there is no merit in the appeal. The same is dismissed. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE kvm/- CRL.A. No.269/09 -:3:- V.K.MOHANAN, J. No.... Judgment/Order Dated: