IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2009 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1931 CRL.A.No. 898 of 2009() ----------------------- SC.535/2000 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT,-I, MAVELIKKARA .................... APPELLANTS/COUNTER PETITIONERS: -------------------------------------------------------- 1. VIJAYAKUMARI, LEKHA BHAVANAM, PALLICKAL MURI, PALAMEL VILLAGE. 2. SUDHA, CHANGETHU, (CHANGETHU KIZHAKKE PARAYIL) PALLICKAL MURI, PALAMEL VILLAGE. BY ADV. SMT.A.SALINI LAL RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. SMT. M.K. PUSHPALATHA, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CRL APPEAL NO. 898 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 26th day of May, 2009 J U D G M E N T It is an appeal preferred against the order in M.C no.4 of 2007 in SC no. 535/2000. The appellants here in stood a sureties for the first accused. The first accused did not enter appearance and therefore coersive steps were taken and the sureties were directed to produce the accused. They failed to produce the accused. Therefore notice was issued. The bond was forfeited and they did not enter any appropriate explanation. Therefore the court directed them to pay a penalty of Rs.25,000/- and on failure to undergo imprisonment for 6 months in civil prison. It is against that decision, the appeal is preferred, notice given to the public prosecutor. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there was no deleberate or wilfull act by the sureties in not producing the accused. The sureties are poor ladies and CRL A.No.898/2009 : 2 : does not have much income. They are having considerable financial stringencies. Therefore the counsel prays for liniency. From materials available, it can be seen that there is default but not contumacious conduct which warranties higher penalty. So taking into consideration of the factsthat the appellants are ladies and as they are not having financial resources and the fact that there was not much deleberate act on their part. I am inclined to reduce the penalty from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.7,500/-. In the result the appeal is partly allowed and the appellants are directed to pay a penalty of Rs. 7,500/- each and in default to undergo imprisonment in civil prison for a period of 3 weeks each. They shall pay this amount within a period of two months from today failing which the order shall be executed. (M.N. KRISHNAN, J.) jma