IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2009 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3286 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRL.M.P.819/2009 of SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM MC.99/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, SASTHAMCOTTA .................... REVN. PETITIONERS: PETITIONERS/COUNTER PETITIONERS ---------------------------------------------------- 1. REMADEVI, NALLATHUNDIL, PADINJATTUMMURY, SOORANAD. 2. CHANDRAMOHAN, KANCHERIL VADEKKATHIL, KADAPPA, MYNAGAPPALLY, BY ADV. SRI.V.V.RAJA SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.3286 of 2009. = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 21st day of December, 2009. O R D E R The revision petitioners are sureties of the accused in CC.No.382/2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Sasthamkotta. They got released the accused on bail after executing a bail bond for Rs.15,000/- each with undertaking to produce the accused as and when called upon. But they failed to produce the accused. Consequently, the learned Magistrate was pleased to forefeite the bail bond and registered a case as MC.No.99/2008. By order dated 19.11.2008, the revision petitioners were imposed a penalty of Rs.15,000/- each. The order impugned reads as follows: “CPs. are the sureties of accused in this case. Accused is absconding. Bail cancelled bond forefeited. No sufficient reason shown why penalty shall not be imposed. Hence a penalty of Rs.15,000/- each is imposed as penalty. The Crl.R.P.No.3286 of 2009. -: 2 :- witness warrant to the District Collector concerned to recover the penalty.” 2. The revision petitioners though preferred an appeal, it was belated. To condone the delay, Crl.MP.No.819/2009 was filed. When the petition came up for hearing, neither the revision petitioners nor their counsel were present. The learned Sessions Judge consequently dismissed the petition. The appeal was dismissed as time barred. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above order, this revision petition was filed. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and perusing the order of the Court below, I fail to find any good reason to interfere with the order of the appellate court. But, the order of the trial court which is quoted above, would show that the penalty was imposed without giving the revision petitioners an opportunity to show cause for not imposing penalty. Lower court records Crl.R.P.No.3286 of 2009. -: 3 :- would show that neither any notice was ordered or served. In this view of the matter, I find that the order of the trial court is vitiated since the order was passed without giving them an opportunity to show cause. It appears that the Magistrate forgot the principle of the maxim, audi alteram partem. For that reason, I find that interference in the order of the trial court is warranted though the revision petitioners failed to prefer appeal in time. If I decline to interfere with a reasoning that the appellate court was right in dismissing the petition to condone the delay, it would tantamount to confirm an order which is vitiated for want of notice. Result is denial natural justice. It would be quite appropriate to give an opportunity to the revision petitioners to show cause for not imposing penalty. In the result, this revision petition is allowed. While setting aside the orders of the appellate court as well as that of the trial court, the matter is remitted back to the Crl.R.P.No.3286 of 2009. -: 4 :- trial court for fresh disposal. The learned Magistrate shall dispose the matter afresh after giving due notice to the revision petitioners as contemplated. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. Kvs/-