IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 2ND JANUARY 2009 / 12TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3980 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.275/2008 of SPL.COURT SPE/CBI-II & IV ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CC.2713/2001 of ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, ERNAKULAM (MC 37/2006) .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------- VELAYUDHAN, S/O.THEVAN, 55 YEARS MOOPALY MOOLA, KAKKANADU, KANAYANNOOR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.C.T.JESTIN SRI.T.G.GOPINATHAN RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M. NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRRP.3980/2008 ORDER ON CRL.M.A.12159/2008 IN CRRP 3980/2008 DISMISSED. SD/- M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE 02.01.2009 -TRUE COPY- P.A. TO JUDGE M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE ------------------------------------------------- CRL.R.P.NO. 3980 OF 2008 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the2nd day of January, 2009 O R D E R Revision petitioner is the first surety to the accused in C.C.2713 of 2001. He along with the other surety executed a bond for Rs.20,000/- and got the accused released on bail, undertaking to produce the accused as and when called for. When the accused failed to appear, opportunity was granted to the sureties to produce the accused. On their failure, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate forfeited the bond and registered MC 37 of 2006 under section 446 of Code of Criminal Procedure and issued notice to show cause why the penalty as provided in the bond shall not be realised. Though notice was served on the petitioner, he did not appear or showed any cause. Learned Magistrate thereafter imposed a penalty of Rs.20,000/- each against the sureties. Revision petitioner challenged that order before Sessions Court, Ernakulam in Crl. Appeal 275 of 2008. Learned Sessions Judge, on hearing the revision petitioner, found that revision petitioner has no case that Chief Judicial Magistrate did not comply with the procedural formalities and his grievance is only against the quantum of the penalty. Considering the difficulty expressed by the CRRP 3980/2008 2 revision petitioner, a remission of 50% was granted and penalty was modified to Rs.10,000/-. It is challenged in this revision. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner was heard. 3. The argument of the learned counsel is that the revision petitioner is not in a financial position to pay the penalty and he is suffering from secondary stage of hypoglycemia in addition to hypertension and therefore the order is to be modified. 4. The revision petitioner made the trial Magistrate to believe that he has the capacity to pay Rs.25,000/- in case of violation of the conditions of the bond. In such circumstances, petitioner is not now entitled to contend that he is not capable of paying that amount. Still, considering the medical condition of the revision petitioner, learned Sessions Judge reduced the penalty to Rs.10,000/- from Rs.20,000/- awarded by the learned Magistrate. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the impugned order is illegal. Still, considering all the relevant facts in the interest of justice, the penalty is reduced to Rs.8,000/- as against the revision petitioner. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE okb