IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2011 / 6TH SRAVANA 1933 CRL.A.No. 1319 of 2011() ------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15/11/2010 IN CRMC 33 /2010 IN SC.119/2009 of SESSIONS COURT, KALPETTA .................... APPELLANTS: APPELLANT/SURETY NO.2 ----------------------------------- NAVOOTTY, S/O. MULIYAN, POOVAPPARAMBU, OLAKARA, PERUVALLOOR, TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT: STATE -------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682031. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. REKHA C. NAYAR. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.A. No.1319 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated the 28th day of July, 2011 ORDER The appellant herein is one of the sureties for the accused in S.C.No.119 of 2009 of the Sessions Court, Wayanad, Kalpetta where the offence alleged is under section 307 IPC. From the order impugned it appears that, on the failure of the accused to appear though notices were served on the counter petitioners in the Crl.M.C including the appellant herein, who is CP No.3, and though he prayed for time to produce the accused, he did not produce the accused as undertaken by him and failed to appear before the court on the subsequent date. It was under the above circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge issued the impugned order forfeiting the bond and imposing the penalty of Rs.25,000/- against the appellant and other counter petitioners. It is the above order challenged in this appeal. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant herein stood as one of the sureties because of his neighbourhood with the accused and he was unable to produce the accused since the accused had absconded and he was not aware of the whereabouts of the accused. The appellant being one of the sureties, he is contractually obliged to produce the accused as and when required by the court and CRL.A. No.1319/11 2 because of the failure on the part of the appellant and the other surety, the trial could not be proceeded. Therefore, according to me , as there was failure on the part of the appellant in producing the accused as per the terms of the undertaking, the trial court is justified in forfeiting the bond and imposing penalty on the appellant. However, according to me, the amount imposed as penalty requires reconsideration. At the same time, it is relevant to note that the accused is still absconding and therefore, the trial could not be proceeded. Having regarding to the entire facts and circumstances involved in this case, according to me, the penalty amount fixed by the trial court can be reduced into Rs.12,500/- which will be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. In the result, this appeal is disposed of confirming the findings as per the order dated 15.11.2010 in Crl.M.C.No.33 of 2010 of the court of Sessions Judge, Wayanad, but the penalty amount is modified and reduced into Rs.12,500/- and accordingly, the appellant is directed to pay a penalty of Rs.12,500/-. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in terms of the oder passed by this Court dated 8.7.2011 in Crl.M.A.No.6058 of 2011, the appellant has already deposited a sum of Rs.12,500/- in the trial court and he has produced the receipt by filing memo dated 25.7.2011 and the said amount may be adjusted towards the penalty amount as fixed by this Court. I find no reason to reject the CRL.A. No.1319/11 3 above request. Accordingly, the trial court is directed to adjust the amount of Rs.12,500/- which has already been deposited by the appellant towards the penalty amount as revised and refixed by this court. Accordingly, the coercive steps if any initiated against the appellant as per the above impugned order is cancelled. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE kvm/- CRL.A. No.1319/11 4