IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2010 / 25TH POUSHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2218 of 2006() ------------------------- MC.62/2004 of ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (E & O), ERNAKULAM . .................... PETITIONER(S): COUNTER PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. LAURENCE JOSEPH, 805, THOPPIL MELEVEEDU, 13, KADAYAKULAM, VIZHINJAM TRIVANDRUM. 2. IRINE, D/O. MARIYAMMA, THOPPIL MEDE VEEDU, KADAKKULAM, VIZHINJAM. 3. SIMI PEREIRA, PEREIRA HOUSE, PULIVILAKOM, KOTTAPPURAM, VIZHINJAM, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.R.ANIL RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT.PLEADER SHRI.C.M.KAMMAPPU. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN, J = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.M.C.No.2218 of 2006. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 15th day of January, 2010. O R D E R Petitioners are the counter-petitioners in MC.No.62/2004 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Ernakulam. The first petitioner is the accused in CC.No.22/2000 on the file of the trial court. Other petitioners are the sureties of the first respondent. On application by the first petitioner, bail was granted and after executing a bail bond, the first petitioner was released on bail. Among other things it was undertaken that the first petitioner would appear before the trial court as and when called upon. Petitioners 2 and 3 undertook to produce the first petitioner as and when called upon. But they failed. Hence the learned Magistrate forfeited the bail bond and proceedings were initiated as MC.No.62/2004 under Section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners didn’t respond to the notice Crl.M.C.No.2218 of 2006. -: 2 :- issued from the trial court calling upon the petitioners to show cause for not imposing penalty. However, by the order impugned dated 28.6.2005, the first petitioner was imposed with a penalty of Rs.50,000/-, petitioners 2 and 3 were imposed with a penalty of Rs.25,000/- each. Challenging the correctness of the above order and seeking an order to quash the same, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case was filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Admittedly, the order impugned is an appealable one. In the above circumstance, in case the petitioners are aggrieved, they are at liberty to challenge the same in appeal. A statutory remedy is available to them. This Crl.M.C. under Sec.482 Crl.P.C. is misconceived and devoid of merit. Accordingly it is dismissed. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE KVS/-