IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2009 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2148 of 2009() --------------------------------------- CRA.704/2008 of SPL.COURT SPE/CBI-II & IV ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CC.1113/2000 of CHIEF JUDL.MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANTS/COUNTER PETITIONERS: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ANILKUMAR, S/O.ANANDHAN, AGED 49 YEARS, RAYAROTH HOUSE, AZHIKOD, KANNUR-9. 2. SHARMILA, W/O.BALAKRISHNAN, VAYATH, KANOTH HOUSE, AYENIVAYAL, AZHIKOD, KANNUR-9. BY ADV. SRI.R.DIVAKARAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN,J. .................................... Crl.R.P.No.2148 OF 2009 ............................................. Dated this the 1st day of December, 2009 ORDER Revision petitioners were sureties of the 2nd accused in CC.1113/2000 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Ernakulam. They got released the 2nd accused, who was facing prosecution for offence under Section 420 IPC on bail after executing a bond for Rs. 25,000/- with undertaking to produce the 2nd accused as and when called upon. Since they failed to comply with the conditions in the bond, the learned Magistrate forfeited the bail bond, a case as M.C.No.47/07 was registered and notices were served upon the revision petitioners to show cause for not imposing penalty. But they did not show any cause for not imposing penalty. Therefore, the revision petitioners were sentenced to pay a penalty of Rs.25,000/- each. 2. Though they preferred Criminal Appeal No.704/2008 before the Sessions Judge, Ernakulam they were not successful. Now this revision petition. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and perusing the order of the trial court and judgment of the appellate court, I find that in fact there is failure on the part of the revision petitioners to Crl.R.P.No.2148 OF 2009 2 produce the accused whom they got released on bail from the trial court as undertaken by them in the bail bond. Hence the learned Magistrate was correct in forfeiting the bail bond. According to the learned counsel, the first revision petitioner is a weaver and the second petitioner is house wife and as such they belong to the lower strata of the society and hence they are entitled to a little leniency. It was also submitted that the 2nd accused was subsequently produced before the Magistrate and was released on bail on 10.11.2009. In the above circumstances, I find that the revision petitioners are entitled to a little leniency and that a penalty of Rs.7,500/- would meet the ends of justice. In the result, the revision petition is allowed in part. While confirming the order imposing penalty, the quantum is reduced to Rs.7,500/-each. In default of payment of penalty, the revision petitioners shall undergo simple imprisonment for two months. P.S.GOPINATHAN,JUDGE. mns