IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 24TH OCTOBER 2008 / 2ND KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3391 of 2008(D) ------------------------------- CRA.340/2007 of SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM CC.281/2000 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, VAIKOM (MC.21/2006) .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): REVISION PETITIONERS/COUNTER PETITIONERS ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SURENDRAN, S/O.SIVARAMAN, MANDASSERIL HOUSE, KANNUKETTUSSERY KARA, VAIKOM VILLAGE. 2. SUGUNAN, S/O.KUTTAN, ALANCHERITHARA HOUSE, KANNUKETTUSSERY VAIKOM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO SMT.C.M.CHARISMA SRI.N.A.SHAFEEK RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI C M KAMAPPU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................... CRL.R.P.NO. 3391 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2008 ORDER Petitioners were sureties to the accused in C.C.281 of 2000 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vaikom. On executing bond, undertaking to produce the accused as and when required, accused was released. When the accused failed to appear and petitioners could not produce the accused, the bond was forfeited and proceedings under Section 446 of Code of Criminal Procedure was initiated against petitioners. Petitioners were directed to show cause why the penalty as provided under the bond shall not be imposed. As per the bond, petitioners agreed to pay Rs.30,000/- each. Though originally petitioners appeared, later they failed to appear and learned Magistrate imposed a penalty of Rs.30,000/- each and in default, simple imprisonment for two months in civil prison. Petitioners challenged that order before Sessions Court, Kottayam in Crl.A. 340 of 2007. Learned Sessions Judge took a lenient view and reduced the penalty to Rs.10,000/- each. It is challenged in this revision petition filed under Section 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure. CRRP 3391/2008 2 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. Learned counsel pointed out that in C.C.281 of 2000, the accused subsequently appeared and had undergone imprisonment as directed and in such circumstances, a lenient view may be taken. Learned counsel also submitted that petitioners are not having the means to pay the fine. 3. Having made the court believe that they have got the capacity to pay the amount agreed in the bond and after executing bond, agreeing to pay the penalty of Rs.30,000/- each, in case of violation of the bond, and got the accused released, petitioners cannot be heard to contend that they have no means to pay the amount undertaken in the bond, especially when they have no case that subsequent to the execution of the bond, they lost their wealth or property. But considering the entire facts, interest of justice will be met, if penality is reduced to Rs.5000/- each. Revision petition is allowed in part. Confirming the order of learned Sessions Judge, the penalty is further reduced to Rs.5000/- each. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-