IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.R.HARIHARAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH AUGUST 2008 / 5TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2934 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.NO. 363 OF 2007 OF SESSIONS COURT, KASARAGOD M.C. NO. 8 OF 2000 OF J.F.C.M. KASARAGOD REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/1ST COUNTER PETITIONER: --------------------------------------------------- MOHAMMED ALI, S/O.IBRAHIM, BADIADKA, CHENGALA. BY ADV. SRI.SOJAN MICHEAL RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ----------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA-REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M. NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Crl.R.P. No. 2934 of 2008 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 27-08-2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner was one of the sureties of the accused before the J.F.C.M. Kasaragod. The bond amount was Rs. 25,000/-. Consequent on the non-appearance of the accused before Court, proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and the other surety under Sec. 446 Cr.P.C. as M.C. 8 of 2000. To the show cause notice issued to the sureties in Form No. 48, they to Schedule II Cr.P.C. had no valid explanation to offer. Thereupon the learned Magistrate imposed the bond amount of Rs. 25,000/- as penalty to each of the sureties. Eventhough the revision petitioner filed Crl.A. 363 of 2007 before the Sessions Court, Kasaragod, since the appeal was filed out of time that court dismissed the application without condoning the delay. Hence this Revision. 2. There might have been some laches on the part of the sureties in not producing the accused before court. But there is no case that the sureties were actively or passively assisting the Crl.A. No. 2340 of 2007 -:2:- accused to go abroad and thereby help the accused to flee from justice. Under these circumstances, the revision petitioner deserves some leniency particularly in view of the fact that the accused for whom he stood as surety has subsequently been acquitted. Accordingly, the penalty is reduced to Rs. 5,000/- which the petitioner shall deposit before the trial court within one month from today failing which recovery proceedings shall be initiated against him. This Revision is disposed of as above. V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE) /true copy/ ani.