IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2009 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1931 CRL.A.No. 914 of 2002() ------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.5/2002 IN CRA.NO.177/2000 OF SESSIONS COURT, THODUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDSENTS: --------------------------------------------------- 1. SIVAKUMAR, S/O. KRISHNAN, AGED 41 YEARS, CHOKKANADU ESTATE, MUNNAR, KDH VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM. 2. MURUGAN, S/O. THANKAMANI, AGED 32 YEARS, CHOKKANADU ESTATE, MUNNAR KDH VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM. BY ADV. MR.A.X.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. M.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/06/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON CRL.M.P.NO.7597/2002 IN CRA.NO.914/2002 DISMISSED 3/06/2009 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl. Appeal NO. 914 OF 2002 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2009. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the order of the Sessions Judge, Thodupuzha in Crl.M.C. 5/02 whereby he has directed the sureties of the accused to pay a penalty of Rs.1,000/- each. The accused in the case did not appear before the Court and the sureties were not in a position to produce them and therefore the bond was forfeited and later the Sessions Court directed the sureties to pay the penalty. But what had transpired in between is significant in this case. The accused in the case preferred a Crl.M.C. before this Court as 6427/02 to quash the warrant which was against them. It was a case where the accused was not represented on a particular date and the counsel was permitted to argue the case on another date. Taking into consideration all those subject matters this Court quashed issuance of warrant against the accused. So on whose absence the action is Crl.A. 914 OF 2002 -2- initiated against the sureties had come up before this Court and this Court had granted them a relief by quashing issuance of warrant and permitted their counsel to argue the case on another day. Accordingly the accused was represented, the case was argued, disposed of and in revision the sentence of imprisonment was converted into one of fine of Rs.250/- and the matter had ended there. When such is the situation it may be too harsh for the Court to impose a penalty on these two poor sureties for the reason that the original accused himself has got his warrant quashed. Therefore in the interest of justice and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case I feel it is a fit case where the miscellaneous case is to be dropped. Therefore I set aside the order in Crl.M.C.5/02 and the consequential order to issue distress warrant. The proceedings initiated as Crl.M.C.5/02 is dropped. The Crl.Appeal is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/- Crl.A. 914 OF 2002 -3- M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = Crl.A. No. 914 OF 2002 = = = = = = = = = = = J U D G M E N T 3rd June, 2009