IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2008 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1745 of 2008() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18/10/2007 IN CRMP 1988/2007 IN CRA.779/2007 of ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, VADAKARA MC.51/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, VADAKARA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANTS -------------------------------------- 1. GOPALAN, S/O.KANARAN, AGED 45 YEARS, CHAKKALERI THAZHAKUNI, THIRUVALLUR AMSOM DESOM. 2. KRISHNAN, S/O.POKKAN, AGED 43 YEARS, KUMBALANGOTT HOUSE, THIRUVALLUR AMSOM DESOM. BY ADV. SRI.C.VALSALAN SRI.K.RAKESH ROSHAN SMT.THUSHARA.V RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, COCHIN - 31. BY ADV. SRI. P. RAVINDRA BABU, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== Crl.R.P. No. 1745 of 2008 ========================== Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2008. ORDER The petitioners, who were the sureties of the accused in C.C. No. 817 of 2001 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vadakara, which was a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, were proceeded against by the Magistrate under Section 446 Cr.P.C consequent on the non-appearance of the accused before the court. To the show cause notice issued to them in Form No. 48 of the II Schedule to Cr.P.C, they had no valid explanation to be offered except that the accused had slipped out of the country without their knowledge or connivance. The said version was put forward only before the lower appellate court since they chose to remain absent before the trial court which as per order dated 10.11.2006 imposed the bond amount of Rs.25,000/- as penalty. The appeal filed by the petitioners before the lower appellate court was with a delay of 296 days in filing the same. The explanation offered for condoning the delay was not accepted by the lower appellate CRL.R.P. NO. 1745/2008 -:2:- court which accordingly dismissed the petition to condone the delay and consequently the appeal. Hence this revision. 2. In as much as there is nothing on record to show that the accused in C.C. No. 817 of 2001 had made himself scarce and had slipped out of the country with the active or passive co- operation or connivance of the petitioners, I am inclined to reduce the penalty to Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each which shall be paid within one month from today failing which the Magistrate shall initiate proceedings for recovery. This Crl.R.P. is disposed of as above. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv CRL.R.P. NO. 1745/2008 -:3:-