IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 14TH AUGUST 2009 / 23RD SRAVANA 1931 CRL.A.No. 1680 of 2009() ------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30/05/2008 IN MC.81/2007 IN SC.178/2007 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)I, KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT/9TH ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------- BIJU, S/O.GOVINDAN, CHARUVAYAL VEEDU (CORRECTED AS CHARUVILA VEEDU), CHIRAKKARATHAZHAM, PARAVOOR, KOLLAM. BY ADVS. MR.SHABU SREEDHARAN, MR.C.K.PRASAD, MR.N.A.JOHN JACOB. RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K. PUSHPALATHA. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/08/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. --------------------------- CRL.A.NO.1680 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 14th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, (Adhoc)-I, Kollam in M.C.No.81/2007 in S.C.No.178/2007. The appellant who is the first respondent in the M.C is the 9th accused in the case. He is facing charge under Sections 144, 147,148, 324 and 308 read with Section 149 of the IPC. As he did not appear before the court and as the sureties failed to produce him before the court, the bond was forfeited and the accused was directed to remit Rs.20,000/= and the sureties were directed to pay Rs.5,000/= each. There was also a direction to issue distress warrant against CPs 1 to 3. 2. The learned counsel contends that on account of the peculiar circumstance, the appellant has to go abroad in search of a job and therefore, he was not available to present before the court. It was not a willful or deliberate absence. He also submits that he is also financially not sound. When an accused executes a bond undertaking to appear before the court as and CRL.A.NO.1680 OF 2009 2 when ordered he is expected to respect his own bond. In this case it has not been done. What ever it may be, the learned counsel would submit that there was no deliberate intention to avoid the presence before the court. Taking into consideration all the aspects, I am inclined to reduce the penalty to Rs.10,000/= in stead of Rs.20,000/=. I make it clear that there cannot be a default sentence against the accused for the reason that it is barred under the proviso to Section 446 (2) of the Cr.P.C The accused is directed to pay the penalty on or before 31.10.2009. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl CRL.A.NO.1680 OF 2009 2 CRL.A.NO.1680 OF 2009 2