IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2008 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4069 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.322/2008 of SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA CC.404/2004 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ALAPPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ------------------------------- 1. VIKRAMAN, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.RAGHAVAN, MOOLESSERY LAKSHAM VEEDU COLONY, NADUVILE MURI, NEDUMPURAM VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK. 2. RAJAPPAN, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, PATHUSSERIL HOUSE, WARD NO.V, PERINGARA PANCHAYATH, KUZHIVELIPPURAM MURI, KAVUMBHAGOM VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN SRI.OOMMEN M.MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE HOME SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. BY PP SRI AMJED ALI THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................... CRL.R.P.NO. 4069 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2008 ORDER Revision petitioners are sureties and counter petitioners in M.C.15 of 2008 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alappuzha. They executed a bond agreeing to produce the accused as and when called for. When the accused failed to appear and forfeited the bond, proceedings under Section 446 of Code of Criminal Procedure was initiated by learned Magistrate and M.C.15 of 2008 was registered. Petitioners were issued with a notice to show cause why they shall not be directed to pay penalty. Though they appeared and opportunity was granted to show cause, they failed to appear subsequently and did not show cause. Learned Magistrate passed an order directing them to pay the penalty of Rs.25,000/- as undertaken in the bond. Petitioners challenged the order before Sessions Court, Alappuzha in Crl.A.322 of 2008. Learned Sessions Judge though found that there was no procedural irregularity, took a lenient view and reduced penalty to Rs.10,000/- each granting a remission of Rs.15,000/-. That order is challenged before this court in this revision petition. CRRP 4069/2008 2 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner was heard. The argument of the learned counsel is that revision petitioners are poor and cannot afford to pay the penalty. It was also argued that the accused subsequently appeared and the matter was settled and in such circumstances, the direction to pay penalty is not sustainable. 3. Petitioners persuaded the court to believe that they have the capacity to pay Rs.25,000/- each in breach of the bond and got the accused released on bail. When accused subsequently failed to appear and petitioners being the sureties, were directed to produce the accused, failed to produce the accused. It is in such circumstances, learned Magistrate finding that bond was forfeited, initiated steps as provided under Section 446 of Code of Criminal Procedure. In spite of show cause notice served on the petitioners, they did not show any cause. It is in such circumstances, learned Magistrate imposed the penalty. There is no procedural irregularity. When petitioners themselves made the court to believe that they have the capacity to pay Rs.25,000/- and when they have no case that subsequent to the execution of the bond, their financial conditions changed, they cannot be heard to contend that they have no means to pay the CRRP 4069/2008 3 amount. Still learned Sessions Judge reduced the penalty to Rs.10,000/-. The fact that the case against accused was subsequent settled is not a ground to hold that petitioners are not bound to pay the penalty. In spite of all these aspects, considering the relevant facts, penalty is reduced to Rs.8000/-. Revision petition is disposed accordingly. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-