IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 7TH ASWINA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4602 of 2006(A) ------------------------------- CRA.184/2002 of II ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM MC.3/2002 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS-II, KOLLAM .................... REVN. PETITIONERS: APPELLANTS/COUNTER PETITIONERS 3 & 2: ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. SARASWATHY AMMA, W/O.REGHUNATHAN NAIR, SREYAS, KUZHIYAM CHERRI, PERINADU. 2. BABU, S/O. PACHAN, CHARUVIL PUTHEN VEEDU, KUZHIYAM CHERRI, PERUNADU. BY ADV. SRI.R.SATISH KUMAR RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT AND STATE: ------------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.4602 of 2006 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of September, 2009 ORDER The revision petitioners are the respondents in M.C.No.3 of 2002 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Kollam. They were sureties of the accused in C.C.No.3434 of 1998 who was facing trial for offence under section 420 I.P.C. The first revision petitioner is none other than the wife of the accused. The revision petitioners got the accused before the trial court released on bail after executing bail bond of Rs.8,000/- each. Despite the undertaking to produce as and when called upon they failed to produce the accused. Consequently the learned Magistrate forfeited the bail bond. Though the revision petitioners were called upon to show cause for not imposing penalty, they didn’t show any cause for not imposing penalty. Consequently, by order dated 20.5.2002 the revision petitioners were imposed a penalty of Rs.8,000/- each. Assailing the above order, Criminal Appeal No.184 of 2002 was preferred. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Kollam to Crl.R.P.No.4602 of 2006 2 whom the appeal was made over, by judgment dated 7/10/2006 reduced the penalty to Rs.4,000/- each. 2. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above said order, as modified in appeal, this revision petition was preferred. 3. Three grounds are raised in the memorandum of revision. The first and third grounds are regarding the financial position of the revision petitioners. Financial position of the revision petitioners is not at all a reason to interfere with the order impugned. So, those grounds require no consideration. 4. The second ground raised is that the revision petitioners were not given an opportunity to produce the accused. That is also not correct. The revision petitioners didn't respond to the notice. This is a case where the revision petitioners failed to avail the opportunity. According to the learned counsel, the accused was absconding and that the revision petitioners were not in a position to produce the accused. There is no merit in the contention. 5. Whatever may be the reason, there was failure to Crl.R.P.No.4602 of 2006 3 produce the accused. Hence, the trial court was justified in forfeiting the bond. Since the revision petitioners didn't show any cause for not imposing penalty, the trial court imposed the penalty. In appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge was lenient in reducing the same to half of the bond amount. According to the learned counsel, the first revision petitioner is not in a position to produce the absconding accused who is not known for more than 7 years. Taking into account of the handicap of lady like the 1st revision petitioner I find that she is entitled to a little more leniency and that a penalty of Rs.2,000/- would suffice. But the 2nd revision petitioner is not entitled to any such leniency. In the result, the revision petition is allowed in part. The penalty imposed in respect of the 1st revision petitioner is reduced to Rs.2,000/-. In all other respects, this revision petition is dismissed as devoid of merit. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE Skj.