IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 1ST OCTOBER 2010 / 9TH ASWINA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2169 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.704/2006 of II ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD CC.555/2003 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, ALATHUR (MC. 17 /2006) .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S): APPELLANTS/COUNTER PETITIONERS 1 AND 2: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. KRISHNAN AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. PONNU,K.V.BHAVAN, NEMARA, PALAKKAD. 2. PRASAD, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. VASU, MATTUPARA, NEMARA, PALAKKAD. BY ADVS. SRI.V.JOHN SEBASTIAN RALPH, SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, AT ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V.TEKCHAND THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P. No. 2169 OF 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated the 1st Day of October, 2010 ORDER This Crl.Revision Petition is at the instance of the sureties in a case pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate court, Alathur, challenging the order passed by the said court and also the order of appellate court confirming the order imposing penalty of Rs.5000/- against the each of the revision petitioners under section 446 of Cr.P.C. 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that subsequently, the matter has been settled between the de facto complainant and the accused, where the offence involved is punishable under Section 420 IPC, and, therefore, the order impugned may be set aside. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that the bond executed by the petitioners were not in accordance with the forms prescribed by the criminal Procedure Code and no date was fixed in the bond for the appearance of the accused etc. 3. I am unable to sustain the above contention. In the CRL.R.P 2169/09 -:2:- light of the facts and circumstances involved in the case, it can be seen that the accused was actually released on bail from the police station concerned on 26.6.2003 and subsequently, after investigation, the police had preferred the charge upon which cognizance was taken and C.C.No.555/2003 was instituted in the trial court during the year 2003 itself. The impugned order is dated 20.3.2006. Because of the laches on the part of the accused and the sureties, the petitioners herein, the case could not be proceeded further and hence the learned Magistrate was constrained to take action under section 446 Cr.P.C. against the revision petitioners and thus as per the impugned order on 20.3.2006, the learned Magistrate imposed a penalty of Rs.5000/- against each of the revision petitioners. 4. When the sureties are executing the bond, they are undertaking their liability to produce the accused as and when required by the court and in the present case, the revision petitioners had miserably failed to discharge their contractual obligation and it cannot be said that the order of CRL.R.P 2169/09 -:3:- the learned Magistrate is illegal or incorrect. It is beyond dispute that the revision petitioners had got notice from the court concerned but still then they failed to produce the accused. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel, that no date was fixed in the bond, appears to be irrelevant. In the light of the above circumstances, I find no illegality with the order impugned. 5. However, the learned counsel submitted that subsequently, the matter has been settled out of court and recording the settlement, the accused was acquitted by order dated 12.5.2006. As the accused has already been acquitted, I am of the view that while holding the correctness and legality of the order impugned, the penalty amount fixed by the courts below can be modified and reduced to Rs.1500/- against each of the revision petitioners. In the result, this Crl.R.P. is disposed of upholding the order of the trial court as well as the lower appellate court, at the same time, the penalty imposed is modified and reduced and accoridngly each of the revision petitioners is directed to CRL.R.P 2169/09 -:4:- pay a sum of Rs.1500/- being the penalty which shall be deposited within one month from today, in the trial court. In case if the revision petitioners had already remitted any amount, they are entitled to get set off of the said amount towards the liability now fixed by this Court and they need pay the balance amount, if any. The coercive steps if any pending against the petitioners need be proceeded further only in case of failure to discharge the liability if any, within one month from today. This Crl.R.P. is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE kvm/- CRL.R.P 2169/09 -:5:-