IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 20TH DECEMBER 2011 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 CRL.A.No. 2185 of 2011() ------------------------ SC.240/2007 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-1, KASARAGOD .................... APPELLANTS: COUNTER PETITIONER -------------------------------- 1. T.P. SUMITHRA, W/O. RAJAN, AGED 69 YEARS, RESIDING AT THAIKKADAPURAM, NILESHWAR, NILESWAR VILLAGE. 2. MURALI.C, S/O. RAMANKUTTY, RESIDING AT THAIKKADAPPURAM, NILESHWAR, NILESHWAR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SMT.T.SUDHAMANI RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. LALIZA T.Y. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.A.No. 2185 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated the 21st day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Appellants herein are the sureties for the Ist accused in S.C.No.240 of 2007 of the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Adhoc)-I, Kasaragod. As the Ist accused for whom the appellants stood as sureties jumped over the bail conditions and absconded, the learned Judge of the trial court was forced to initiate proceedings under section 446 Cr.P.C against the appellants which culminated in the order dated 27.7.2009 in M.C.No.60/2009 in S.C.No.240/2007 of the trial court which is the impugned order by which the learned Judge imposed the penalty of Rs.20,000/- each on the appellants. 2. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that though the Ist accused, for whom the appellants stood as sureties, absconded had subsequently, appeared before the Court below and faced the trial and by judgment dated 9.8.2011 in S.C.No. 315/2009 of the court below, the said accused is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him . Therefore, the Counsel submitted that the order of the court CRL.A.2185/11 2 below is liable to be set aside or a lenient view may be taken in the matter of penalty amount. 3. As the appellants were sureties of the Ist accused, it was for them to produce the accused as and when required by the court below and on their failure to produce the accused in terms of the undertaking made by them while executing he bond, they are bound to face the consequence. The subsequent appearance of the accused before the court below is not a ground to relieve the appellants from their contractual obligation. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the findings of the court below and imposing penalty against the appellants under section 446 Cr.P.C. However, it can be seen that the bail bond was for Rs.25,000/- and the penalty amount fixed by the court below is Rs.20,000/-. It is also a fact that the Ist accused, for whom the accused stood as sureties, had subsequently appeared before the court below and got an order of acquittal. In the above factual circumstances, according to me, the penalty amount imposed on the appellants requires reconsideration. Considering the age of the first appellant, and the social status of the appellants, according to me, the CRL.A.2185/11 3 penalty amount can be revised and fixed as Rs.6000/- on each of the appellants. In the result, in modification of the order of the court below, each of the appellants is directed to pay a penalty of Rs.6000/- (Rs.six thousand only) under section 446 Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in terms of the order passed by this Court on 19.3.2010 in Crl.M.A.No.2738/10, each of the appellants have already deposited a sum of Rs.6000/- in the trial court as evidenced from the receipts Nos.198/2010-11 and 197/2010-11 dated 31.3.2011 issued from the District Court, Kasaragod which produced before this court and the said amount may be adjusted towards the revised penalty amount as fixed by this Court. I find no reason to reject the above request. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the trial court that, the amount of Rs.6000/- deposited by each the appellants in terms of the order dated 19.3.2011 in Crl.M.A.No.2738/10 as evidenced by the receipts mentioned above, be adjusted towards the amount now revised and refixed by this court towards the penalty amount. As the appellants have already deposited the revised penalty CRL.A.2185/11 4 amount, the coercive steps if any initiated against the appellants shall stand cancelled. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE kvm/- CRL.A.2185/11 5