IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 9TH APRIL 2010 / 19TH CHAITHRA 1932 CRL.A.No. 757 of 2010() ----------------------- MC.45/2009 IN SC.NO.1454/2008 of I ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT/COUNTER SURETY: -------------------------------------------------- LAKSHMANAN,S/O.PONNAN,T.C.3/708, VARUVILA VEEDU,PUCHAKKARI,THIRUVALLOM.P.O. BY ADV. SRI.POOVAPPALLY M.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. HRITHIK THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------- Crl. APPEAL No.757 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of April, 2010. J U D G M E N T The appellant is one of the sureties, for the accused in S.C.No.1454/08, who was facing prosecution for the offence punishable u/s.302 of IPC. After the release of the accused on bail and at the time when the trial was pending, the accused namely, one Mr.Nazar, for whom the appellant stood as one of the sureties, jumped over the bail condition and as the appellant failed to produce the accused, the court below constrained to initiate proceedings u/s.446 of Cr.P.C. against the appellant as well as the other surety and by an order dated 27.8.2009 the sureties therein including the appellant herein, directed to deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/- being the penalty, within 30 days from the date of the order. It is the above order challenged in this appeal. 2. The learned counsel submitted that, subsequent to the proceedings initiated against the appellant, the accused was Crl. APPEAL No.757 of 2010 2 arrested and produced on 10.11.2009 and now the accused is available for trial. Even though the accused was subsequently arrested and now available for trial, are not ground to find fault with the order passed by the trial court. As per the undertaking made by the appellant and in view of the contractual obligation, which arose out of the Bond executed by the appellant, it was incumbent upon the appellant to produce the accused as and when required by the trial court. But the appellant miserably failed to produce the accused in lieu offering any convincing explanation. 3. However, considering the fact that the accused has subsequently arrested and now available for trial, while sustaining the impugned order passed by the trial court, the amount of penalty can be modified and reduced. According to me, the amount fixed by the trial court can be reduced into Rs.10,000/-, which will be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. In the result, this appeal is disposed of and while confirming the order of the trial court dated 27.8.2009 in Crl. APPEAL No.757 of 2010 3 M.C.No.45/09 in S.C.1454/08, the penalty amount is reduced and refixed as Rs.10,000/-. The learned counsel submitted that, at the time of condoning the delay petition, by an order dated 18.3.2010 in Crl.M.A.No.2693/10, this court imposed a condition to deposit Rs.10,000/- and the same was complied with and the said amount can be adjusted towards the revised penalty amount. Therefore there will be a direction to the court below to adjust the sum of Rs.10,000/- deposited by the appellant/ petitioner, in compliance of the order dated 18.3.2010 in Crl.M.A.No.2693/10, towards the penalty amount as revised and refixed by this court. The coercive steps if any, taken against the appellant shall stand cancelled. The Crl.Appeal is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. ami/