IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2010 / 27TH SRAVANA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2245 of 2010() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER IN CMP.2707/2009 IN CRA.433/2009 of SESSIONS COURT, THALASSERY CMP.5595/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, KANNUR .................... PETITIONERS/APELLANTS: ------------------------------------------ 1. MANI DEEPA, D/O. KANNAN, AGED 36 YEARS, PULLIANDI HOUSE, CHIRAKKAL AMSOM, PUZHATHI DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. P.VASUMATHI, D/O. KUNHIRAMAN, ARIPPA HOUSE, CHIRAKKAL AMSOM, PUZHATHI DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT, SRI.K.N.ABHILASH, SMT.R.LEELA. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. VENUGOPAL.M.R. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss V.K.MOHANAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No. 2245 of 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of August, 2010 O R D E R This Criminal Revision Petition is preferred challenging the order dated 5.4.2010 in Crl.A.No.433 of 2009. 2. The revision petitioners are the appellants in Crl.A.No.433 of 2009 of the Sessions Court, Thalassery. By the impugned order, the appellate court, while confirming the order of the trial court imposing penalty against the appellants, reduced the amount of penalty from Rs.1 lakh to Rs.50,000/-.Thus, each of the revision petitioners is directed to pay penalty to Rs.50,000/-. 3. From the impugned order, it appears that M.C.No.192 of 2008 is a proceedings initiated by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kannur against the appellants, who are the sureties of the petitioner in CMP No.5655 of 2007, which was a petition preferred before that court for release of the vehicle bearing Registration No.KL 13L 3321 Indigo car. The learned Magistrate allowed the above petition which was preferred Crl.R.PNO.2245 of 2010 :-2-: under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. and released the vehicle in favour of one Manoj, who is the petitioner therein and towards the release of the said vehicle, the appellants executed bond for Rs.1 lakh. 4. It is also discernible from the order impugned that the petitioner in CMP No.5595 of 2007, who is a rival claimant, has filed Crl.M.C.No. 1124 of 2008 before this Court against the order in CMP No 5655 of 2007. This Court remanded the matter and consequently, the learned Magistrate passed Annexure A1 order releasing the vehicle in favour of the petitioner in CMP No.5595 of 2007, viz., Mr.Prasanth, as evidenced by Annexure A1 order. Annexure A1 order was passed by the learned Magistrate after hearing both the claimants and the counsel representing them. The operative portion of Annexure A1 reads as follows:- “20. So the vehicle bearing No.KL.13.3321 Tata Indigo Car shall be put in possession of the petitioner in CMP 5595/07 u/s.452 Cr.P.C.” 5. After the date of Annexure A1 order, though the Crl.R.PNO.2245 of 2010 :-3-: petitioner in CMP No.5655 of 2007 preferred Crl.M.C.No.3161 of 2008 before this Court and obtained stay order on 19.8.2008, subsequently, the said Crl.M.C. was withdrawn on 5.12.2008. Thus, it can be seen that, this Court passed the stay order on 19.8.2008. Whereas the appellants failed to produce the vehicle in terms of Annexure A1 order dated 24.7.2008. Thus, the order imposing penalty against the appellants was passed on 11.8.2008. 6. Subsequently, the revision petitioners herein preferred Crl.A.No.433 of 2009 and by a detailed order, the appellate court, while upholding the correctness of the order imposing penalty against the revision petitioners, modified the penalty amount and reduced the same to Rs.50,000/- and accordingly, each of the revision petitioners is ordered to pay Rs.50,000/- as penalty. 7. On the strength of the decisions reported in Rajpal and another v. State of U.P. (2009 KHC 174) Sajitha and another v. State of Kerala [2010(2) KHC 700], the learned Crl.R.PNO.2245 of 2010 :-4-: counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the orders of the trial court as well as the lower appellate court are incorrect and illegal and liable to be interfered with. The above two decisions relied on by the counsel are not applicable in the present case especially, for the sole reason that the above two decisions are connected with the release of the accused on bail. In the present case, the contractual obligation arose out of the release of vehicle. Learned counsel further submitted that the vehicle has subsequently been produced and therefore, the purpose is served and therefore, the order issued by the court below is liable to be set aside. I am quite unable to entertain such argument. As and when the revision petitioners execute the bond and record their undertaking, they are entering into a contract for the production of the vehicle and in this case, they miserably failed to produce the vehicle when a direction was given to them to produce the same. Learned counsel submitted that there is no specific direction to the revision petitioners to Crl.R.PNO.2245 of 2010 :-5-: produce the vehicle. The above submission also is not tenable. It can be seen that Annexure AI order was passed after hearing the petitioners and their counsel and it cannot be said that the counsel who appeared for the petitioners in the court below failed to understand the direction contained in para 20 of the order impugned. However, the lower appellate court, after considering the entire matter, interfered with the amount quantified by the trial court as penalty and reduced the same from Rs.1 lakh to Rs.50,000/-. In the light of the facts stated above, I am of the view that the revision petitioners have miserably failed to discharge their contractual obligation in producing the vehicle and therefore, I find no illegality in the order issued by the trial court as well as the lower appellate court. However, considering the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the amount now modified and fixed by the lower appellate court is modified and reduced to Rs.35,000/- and each of the revision petitioners is directed to pay penalty of Rs.35,000/-, in Crl.R.PNO.2245 of 2010 :-6-: modification of the order issued by the trial court as well as the lower appellate court, within one month from today and in case of any failure on the part of the revision petitioners in paying the revised penalty amount within the time limit, the trial court is free to take coercive steps for realisation of such amount. The Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of as above. V.K.Mohanan, Judge. MBS/ Crl.R.PNO.2245 of 2010 :-7-: V.K.MOHANAN, J. -------------------------------------------- Crl.A.NO. OF 200 ------------------------------------ J U D G M E N T Crl.R.PNO.2245 of 2010 :-8-: DATED: -2-2010 Crl.R.PNO.2245 of 2010 :-9-: