IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 22ND MAGHA 1931 CRL.A.No. 172 of 2010() --------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19/02/2003 IN MC.10/2003 IN SC.1017/2000 of ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, ATTINGAL ...................................................... APPELLANT(S): COUNTER PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. YASODHA, AGED 68, (CP1),D/O.SHARADHA, EDAVILAKAM LEKSHAM VEEDU, MANGALAPURAM, VELLOOR VILLAGE. 2. ABDUL MAJEED, AGED 70, (CP2) S/O.ABDUL RAHUMAN, KALIYILKUNNU VEETIL, EDAVILAKOM, MANGALAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.SANEER RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER: --------------------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV.SRI.C.M.KOMMAPPU, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------- Crl.Appeal No.172 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of February, 2010. J U D G M E N T This appeal is at the instance of the the sureties in S.C.No.1017/2000 of the court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Attingal. By the impugned order dated 19.02.2003 in M.C.No.10/03 in S.C.1017/00, the said Court imposed penalty of Rs.25,000/- against the appellant u/s.446 of Cr.P.C. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 3. The impugned order is dated 19.02.2003, from which it is descernable that the appellants were absent inspite of the notice. The learned counsel submitted that they did not receive any notice from the court below. In order to support the above submission there is no material before this court. But the court below has specifically found that the counter petitioners were absent inspite of repeated service of notice on the appellant. In the above circumstances I find no reason to hold that the finding of the court below is incorrect or illegal. 2 4. However it is brought to my notice as per Annexure A order that this court has quashed the proceedings pending before the court below as S.C.1017/00 at the instance of the accused, in which the offence alleged against him is u/s.366(A) of I.P.C. It is true that Annexure A passed by this court on 04.10.2007 that is much after the impugned order. The appellants who are the sureties of the accused were bound to produce accused in terms of the conditions undertaken by them at the time of releasing the accused upon their surety- ship. Therefore, the appellants are bound to face the consequence, because of the violation of the bail bond conditions. Therefore the order imposing penalty against the appellants are also in accordance with the provision and in accordance with the terms of the bond executed by them. Still then the amount fixed as penalty and imposed against the appellants appears to be too high and excessive, therefore, I am of the view to meet the end of justice, the amount can be reduced. Considering the fact that the accused has been 3 subsequently relieved of the offence charged against him at the intervention of this court in a proceedings u/s.482 of Cr.P.C., the amount of penalty ordered by the court below can be reduced to Rs.5,000/- and accordingly each of the appellants are directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- each. 5. It is brought to my notice that when the delay petition was considered by this court, each of the appellants were directed to deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/- each in the court below. Accordingly, the appellants produced the receipt issued by Sessions Court showing the remittance. Therefore I am of the view that the amount so deposited by the appellants towards the compliance of the condition imposed at the time of condoning the delay, can be adjusted towards the amount now modified and fixed by this court. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part reducing the amount of penalty from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.5,000/- and the court below is directed to adjust the amount already deposited by the appellants towards the compliance of the conditions 4 imposed at the time of allowing the delay petition as per order dated 9.12.2009 in Crl.M.A.No.12009/09 of this Court. The coercive steps if any issued against the appellants shall stand cancelled. Criminal Appeal is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. ami/ Hand over the order.