IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 21ST MAGHA 1930 CRL.A.No. 258 of 2009() ----------------------- MC.19/2005 of SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKOE S.C.No 260/2005 OF THE SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE. .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------ 1. KUNHIKANNAN, S/O.KUNHIKANRAN, MUCHITAPARAMBATH THAMASIKKUM,KADUKKATTUMMAL, MENHANNIAM AMSOM, MARUTHERI DESOM. 2. KUNHARIYAN, S/O.THEYYON, PULIYULLAPARAMBIL MEETHAL, MENHANNIAM AMSOM, MARUTHERI DESOM. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE ---------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP.P.PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. TAHSILDAR,KOYILANDY. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. K.L.LAKSHMI RANI THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------------- CRL.A. No.258 of 2009 ---------------------------------------------- Dated, 10th February, 2009 JUDGMENT Appellants are the sureties for the accused in S.C.No.260 of 2005. The above Sessions Case was instituted upon a police report for the offences punishable under section 489-B and C read with Section 34 of the IPC. The accused was released on bail upon the suretyship of the appellants. Subsequently, the accused jumped over the bail conditions and there was no appearance for the accused or representation irrespective of the fact that summons was served on the accused by affixture. Therefore the Sessions Court was constrained to cancel the bail granted to the accused and Non Bailable Warrant was issued. Proceedings under section 446 Cr.P.C was initiated against the appellants and notice was issued to them. Though the appellants appeared on 13.1.2006, they failed to produce the accused in spite of time granted to them so as to enable the sureties to produce the accused. But on 16.3.2006 when the Crl.A. 258/09 -:2:- case was taken for further consideration, the appellants failed to appear before the court. Consequently, the court issued the impugned order directing the appellants to pay a penalty of Rs.20,000/- each which is the bond amount. It is the above order challenged in this appeal. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. The learned counsel submitted that pursuant to the notice issued from the court, the appellants contacted the accused and, according to the learned counsel, the appellants were assured by the accused that he will appear before the court in time and the appellants were under the impression that no further proceedings would be initiated against them as the sureties. So it was in the above circumstances, they failed to appear on 16.3.2006. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel that the accused, for whom the appellants stood as sureties, subsequently appeared before the court below and he is facing trial. Thus, the learned counsel submitted that in the light of the above factual position, the impugned order may be Crl.A. 258/09 -:3:- set aside. 4. M.C.No.19/2005 was registered because of the accused, for whom, the appellants stood as sureties, jumped over the bail conditions and failed to appear before the court to face trial. The appellants miserably failed to procure the presence of the accused in terms of the bond conditions and therefore, the court was not in a position to proceed with the trial even though the case is pertained to the year 2005. It is also discernible from the order that though sufficient opportunities were given to the appellants to produce the accused, they failed to produce the accused and they themselves kept away from the court proceedings. In this factual position, I find no illegality in the order under challenge. However, it is an undisputed fact that the accused, for whom the appellants stood as sureties, has subsequently appeared before the court below and he is facing the trial and therefore, the amount ordered as penalty can be reduced. 5. Under the circumstances explained above, the amount directed to be paid as penalty is reduced from Rs.20,000/- to Crl.A. 258/09 -:4:- Rs.10,000/-. Thus each of the appellants are directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- before the court below within one month from today. If the amount so revised is not paid within the time stipulated above, the court below is free to take coercive steps for the realisation of the said amount. The revenue recovery proceedings, if any, initiated on the basis of the impugned order shall be deferred for a period of one month from today. If the amount is paid as directed, all coercive steps shall be dropped. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE kvm/- Crl.A. 258/09 -:5:- V.K.MOHANAN, J. No.... Judgment/Order Dated: