IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 26TH OCTOBER 2010 / 4TH KARTHIKA 1932 CRL.A.No. 2002 of 2010() -------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30/09/2008 IN MC 15/2008 IN SC.1424/2008 of ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, KOTTARAKKARA .................... APPELLANT(S): /COUNTER PETITIONERS ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. RAJAMMA,W/O.PRASAD, PLAVILAPADIJATTATHIL VEEDU, ADOOR MURI, PERINGANADU VILLAGE, ADOOR. 2. BHASKARAN, S/O.ADICHAN, BABUSADANAM VEEDU, PALLICKAL MURI, PERINGANADU VILLAGE, ADOOR. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): STATE ------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (SL.NO.1424/2008 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, KOTTARAKKARA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.R.VENUGOPAL THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------- Crl.Appeal No.2002 of 2010. ------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of October, 2010. J U D G M E N T The appellants are sureties for the 1st accused in S.C.No.1424/08 of the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Kottarakara. As the accused for whom the appellants stood as sureties, subsequently jumped over the bail condition and consequently the trial court initiated proceedings u/s.446 of Cr.P.C. against the appellants and finally by an order dated 30.9.2008 in M.C.No.15/08, each of the appellants are directed to pay a penalty of Rs.10,000/-. It is the above order challenged in this appeal. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the 1st accused for whom the appellants stood as sureties have subsequently appeared before the trial court and the trial against the said accused is in progress in S.C.No.148/09 in the trial court. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that a lenient view may be taken in the matter of the penalty amount. 2 Crl.Appeal No.2002 of 2010. 3. As the 1st accused failed to appear before the trial court as and when required by the said court and the appellants failed to produce the 1st accused for whom they stood as sureties, the impugned order passed by the court below is perfectly legal and valid, since the appellants miserably failed to discharge their contractual obligation in producing the accused when required by the court below. Therefore no interference is warranted with the impugned order, on the ground of any illegality or incorrectness. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, I am of the view that, the penalty amount fixed by the court below can be modified, particularly in the light of the fact that subsequently the accused have appeared before the court below and the trial is in progress. In the result, this appeal is disposed of upholding the legality and correctness of the order dated 30.9.2008 in M.C.No.15/08 in S.C.No.1424/08 of the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Kottarakara. While upholding the correctness of the order, the penalty amount fixed by the court below is 3 Crl.Appeal No.2002 of 2010. modified and reduced into Rs.3,000/-, which will be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, each of the appellants are directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/-, towards the penalty amount. The learned counsel for the petitioners/appellants submitted that in terms of the order passed by this court on 7.4.2010 in Crl.M.A.No.3462/10, each of the appellants have deposited Rs.3,000/- and the same may be adjusted towards the penalty amount fixed by this court. If it is true that each of the appellants have deposited Rs.3,000/- in the trial court, in terms of the above order, the trial court is directed to adjust the said amount deposited by the appellants, towards the penalty amount revised and fixed by this court. The coercive steps if any, pending against the appellants shall stand cancelled. Accordingly, this criminal appeal is disposed of. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. ami/