IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 2ND ASWINA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 711 of 2001(C) ------------------------------------- MC.98/1995 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KASARAGOD CRA.66/1998 of SESSIONS COURT, KASARAGOD .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED : ----------------------------------------------------- MOOSA KOLOT, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED, ALOOR HOUSE, MULIYAR P.O., KASARGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT : ---------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.KAMMAPPU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 711 of 2001(C) ORDER ON CRL.M.P.NO.3376 OF 2001 IN CRL.R.P.NO.711 OF 2001 DISMISSED 24.09.2008 SD/- THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE -TRUE COPY- P.A. TO JUDGE pac THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J -------------------------- CRL. R.P.NO. 711 OF 2001 --------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of September, 2008 O R D E R Revision petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 29.9.1997 in M.C.No. 98/95 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kasaragod. He was one of the sureties of the accused in C.C. No. 229/92. Vide the impugned order, he was directed to pay a penalty of Rs. 15,000/- for alleged violation of the bond executed by him. 2. Heard. 3. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, there was no violation of the bond at the instance of the Revision Petitioner and hence, the Trial Court was not justified in imposing penalty. The learned counsel submitted that the appellate court also did not take into account the relevant circumstances, in this matter. 4. Going by the impugned order, the accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and sentenced by the Trial Court to pay a fine of Rs. 26,000/-. The accused preferred an appeal before the Sessions Crl. R.P. No. 711/2001 -2- Court as Crl. Appeal No. 40/1994. The sentence was suspended. The impugned order stated that the sentence was suspended by the appellate court on the strength of the bond executed by the accused and his sureties including the Revision Petitioner for Rs. 15,000/- each. The learned Sessions Judge while disposing of the appeal directed the accused to pay a fine of Rs. 27,500/-. He was directed to surrender, and the sureties including the Revision Petitioner were directed to cause production of the accused in the Trial Court on 31.07.1995. In the meantime, the accused challenged the judgment of the appellate court in this Court in Crl. R.P. No. 597/1995. This Court by order dated 26.7.1995, directed the accused to deposit the entire amount of fine within 8 weeks in the Trial Court. Crl. R.P. No. 597/1995 was disposed of by this Court on 6.8.2004 observing that in compliance with the order dated 26.7.1995, the fine has already been deposited in the Trial Court. In the light of the order of the suspension granted by this Court on 26.7.1995, the Revision Petitioner was not obliged to cause production of the accused in the Trial Court on 31.7.1995 as directed in the judgment of the Sessions Court. It is seen that C.C. No. 229/1992 has also been finally disposed of. In these Crl. R.P. No. 711/2001 -3- circumstances, there was no justification in directing the Revision Petitioner to pay penalty as done in the impugned order. This Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order against the Revision Petitioner is set aside. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vkm