IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2008 / 12TH MAGHA 1929 CRL.A.No.2227 of 2007(C) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18/07/2007 IN MC.17/2007 IN SC.412/2006 OF ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, ERNAKULAM. .................... APPELLANT: APPELLANT/IST COUNTER PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------------------- BABU P.N., S/O.NARAYANAN, PUTHENKUDY HOUSE, THOTTAKAM KARA, MATTOOR, ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.K.SUNILKUMAR RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.RAVINDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/02/2008, ALONG WITH CRL.A.NO. 2466 OF 2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------------ Crl. Appeal Nos.2227 & 2466 of 2007 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 1st day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT These are appeals filed under Section 449 of the Cr.P.C. The appellant in Crl.A. No.2227/07 was surety No.1 to the accused in S.C.412/06 and the appellant in Crl.A.No. 2466/07 is the wife and legal heir of Chandran/the second surety to the said accused. 2. The accused in S.C.412/06 was being enlarged on bail on execution by him of bond for Rs.10,000/- with the appellant in Crl.A.No.2227/07 as also Chandran the husband of the appellant in Crl.A. No.2466/07 as sureties. The accused in the case failed to appear in court and thus, he violated the conditions of the bond. Consequently, notice was issued to the sureties calling upon them to show cause as to why the bond amount should not be recovered from them as penalty. Despite notice, the sureties who are counter Crl. Appeal Nos.2227 & 2466 of 2007 -2- petitioners in the order assailed did not appear before court or show any cause against realisation of penalty, but even at that time, it had been brought to the notice of the court below that Chandran/the second surety had passed away on 09/05/07 and death certificate of the competent authority was also produced before court. But the court observed that the death has occurred after the forfeiture of the bail bond on 19/04/07 and consequently, the said second surety was also not exonerated by the court below and by the impugned order a penalty of Rs.7,500/- each was imposed and the penalty payable by the second counter petitioner was ordered to be realised from his estate as contemplated under Section 446(4) of the Cr.P.C. 3. On perusal of the records, I am of the view that the penalty imposed is excessive and that has to be reduced to Rs.5,000/- each giving remission for the balance amount of the bond. Crl. Appeal Nos.2227 & 2466 of 2007 -3- 4. In the result, allowing these Criminal Appeals, I reduce the penalty imposed as against the appellant in Crl.A.No.2227/07 and as against the assets of the second surety/ Chandran whose wife and legal representative is the appellant in Crl.A.No.2466/07 to Rs.5,000/- each giving remission for the balance amount of the bond. The amounts so imposed as penalty shall be paid positively within one month from today failing which the court below shall realise it according to law respectively from the appellant in Crl.A.No. 2227/07 and from the estate or assets left behind by the second surety/Chandran whose wife and legal heir is the appellant in Crl.A.No.2466/07. 5. These appeals thus stand partly allowed. K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE kns/-