IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER FRIDAY, THE 28TH MARCH 2008 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 765 of 2000(B) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18/05/1999 IN CP.20/98 IN MC.21/1999 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, MANJERI CRA.83/1999 of SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI . ................... REVN. PETITIONER: --------------------------- 1. P.ABDULLA, S/O ALAVI, POOZHIKUTH HOUSE, PULLOOR, ERNAD TALUK. 2. A.ABDULRAHIMAN, S/O.KUNHIMMU, ATHIMANNIL HOUSE, PULLOOR, ERNAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.JALEEL SRI.C.ANILKUMAR (KALLESSERIL) RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- THE STATE OF KERELA REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANJERI POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJETH ALI. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/03/2008, ALONG WITH CRRP NO. 768 OF 2000 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. Basheer, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.Nos. 765 & 768 of 2000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of March, 2008. ORDER The common petitioners in these two petitions had stood as surety for accused Nos.13 and 14 in C.P.No.20/1998 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, No.I, Manjeri. 2. The above committal proceedings had arisen from Crime No.108/1997 of Manjeri Police Station. The accused in that crime had allegedly committed the offences punishable under Sections 452, 332 and 395 IPC and Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property act 1984. 3. It is not in dispute that the petitioners had bailed out accused Nos.13 and 14 from the court after executing appropriate surety bonds. It is also not in dispute that the 2 accused had failed to appear before the court. Petitioners had also failed to produce them before the court as directed. Therefore the learned Magistrate by his order dated May 18, 1999 forfeited the bonds executed by the petitioners and directed them to pay a penalty of Rs.20,000/- each. In appeal the learned Sessions Judge reduced the penalty amount to Rs.15,000/- each. The orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge are under challenge in these two revision petitions. 4. Learned counsel submits that the courts below were not justified in imposing the penalty on the petitioners without affording them an opportunity to show cause. It is seen from the order of the Crl.RPs.765 & 768/2000. 2 learned Magistrate that notice had been sent to the sureties and that they had not shown any “reason why the accused was not produced”. Though there is some force in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that they had not been afforded sufficient opportunity in the matter, I am of the view that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, especially at this distance of time, it may not be prudent or expedient to remit the case back to the court below. Learned counsel submits that petitioners would be satisfied if some leniency is shown in the matter of quantum of penalty imposed on them. 5. In the above facts and circusmtances the penalty imposed on the petitioners is modified and reduced. Petitioners shall remit a sum of Rs.5,000/- each in respect of the bonds executed by them for accused Nos.13 and 14 in the above proceedings. Petitioners shall remit the penalty before the trial court on or before April 30, 2008 failing which the learned Magistrate shall take appropriate steps to recover the same in accordance with law. Crl.R.P.s are disposed of in the above terms. A.K. Basheer Judge. an.