IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 2ND ASWINA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3265 OF 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.292/2008 OF SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM MC.7/2008 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOTTAYAM .................... REVN. PETITIONERS/ APPELLANT/COUNTER PETITIONER: ------------------------ 1. GOPI S/O. NARAYANAN, VELUTHEDATHUPRAMPIL VEEDU, MUTTAMBALA KARA, MUTTAMBALAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK. 2. RAJEEV, S/O. SREEDHARAN, KANJIRAKKATTU VEEDU, MUTTAMBALAM KARA, MUTTAMBALAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK BY ADV. SRI.M.J.THOMAS RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P. RAVEENDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.R.P. NO. 3265 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 24th day of September, 2008 O R D E R Petitioners were the sureties to the accused in S.T.1066 of 2004. They executed a bond undertaking to produce the accused as and when required and on failure to pay penalty of Rs.20,000/-. Eventhough criminal revision was disposed by this Court directing the accused to appear before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kottayam on 13.11.2007, accused did not appear. Learned Magistrate therefore issued notice to the petitioners being the sureties to show cause why penalty shall not be imposed. They did not appear. Bond was forfeited and a penalty of Rs.20,000/- as provided in the bond was imposed as per the order in M.C.7 of 2008. Petitioners challenged that order before Sessions Court, Kottayam in criminal appeal 292 of 2008. Learned Sessions Judge found that there is no procedural irregularity and as petitioners did not appear and show cause why penalty shall not be imposed the order is legal. But, taking a lenient view, penalty was reduced to Rs.5,000/- each. This petition is filed challenging that order. CRRP3265/08 2 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners were heard. 3. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for petitioners is that as per Annexure-I judgment in Crl.R.P.2000 of 2007 accused was directed to appear on 30.11.2007 and as per Annexure-II order in Crl.M.C.1581 of 2008 this Court extended the period and directed the accused to appear on 19.4.2008 and the accused did appear on that day and had in fact paid the compensation as directed in Annexure-I judgment itself and in such circumstances the order is to be set aside. 4. The bond was forfeited on the failure of the petitioners to appear before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in spite of notice served on them directing them to produce the accused before that Court and show cause why penalty shall not be ordered on the failure of the accused to appear before that Court as directed by this Court in Crl.R.P.2000 of 2007. The subsequent extension of time by this Court is not an excuse for the failure of petitioners to appear and show cause why the penalty shall not be imposed. But taking into consideration the fact the accused subsequently CRRP3265/08 3 appeared before the learned Magistrate and that too this Court had extended period for his appearance, the penalty imposed by the learned Sessions Judge is reduced to Rs.2,000/- each. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE Okb/-