IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2009 / 4TH ASHADHA 1931 CRL.A.No. 284 of 2007() ---------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31/01/2004 IN IN MC 1/2004 IN SC.416/1999 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT(S): COUNTER PETITIONER NO.2 AND 3 ----------------------------- 1. PAPPACHAN, S/O.SAMUEL, MULLASSERIL LEKSHAM VEEDU, KADATHUR, THAZHAVA, KARUNAGAPPALLY. 2. ANNAMMA, D/O.ELIYA, MULLASSERIL LEKSHAM VEEDU, KADATHUR, THAZHAVA. BY ADVS. MR.P.A.NOOR MUHAMMED MR.C.K.PRASAD RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.THOMAS JOHN MABOOKEN THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl. Appeal NO. 284 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 25th day of June, 2009. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the order of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Adhoc-I, Kollam in M.C.1/04 in S.C.416/99. As per the order counter petitioners 2 and 3 in the M.C. stood as sureties to the 8th accused in the case and as the 8th accused did not appear before court and as sureties did not give any valid explanation the bond was forfeited and they were directed to pay a penalty of Rs.10,000/- each. It is against that decision the appeal is preferred. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. It is contended by him that the 3rd counter petitioner in the M.C. is not a surety to A8. If she is not a surety to A8 then initiation of the proceedings against her will not be proper and valid in law. It is also to be stated that subsequently the 8th accused namely the first counter petitioner had entered appearance and the case has also ended in acquittal. It appears that the Crl.A. 284 OF 2007 -2- Court below has forfeited the bond and directed to realise the entire bond amount as penalty. It is also submitted that the parties are in a poor financial position and they have not intentionally helped the accused from evading presence before the Court. So taking into consideration the entire materials I think the matter requires reconsideration especially in the light of the fact that it is submitted that the third counter petitioner in the M.C. is not the surety of A8. Therefore the order under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Court below with a direction to find out whether the third counter petitioner is a surety to the 8th accused and further give an opportunity to give their explanations and take a lenient view in the light of the subsequent developments, when the court is satisfied that there is no deliberate or willful collusion between the sureties and the accused to evade presence before court. Parties are directed to appear before the Court below on 6.8.2009. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-