IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY, 2009 / 1ST MAGHA, 1930 CRL.A.No. 139 of 2009 (AGAINST THE ORDER IN MC.4/2008 IN SC.964/2006 of SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM) .................... APPELLANTS/COUNTER PETITIONERS 2 AND 3: ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. RASHEEDA, D/O. MAJEEDKUTTY, VAYALIL PUTHEN VEEDU, VADAKKEVILA KISHAKKECHERRY, THAZHUTHALA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. ARIFA BEEVI, W/O. BADARUDEEN, VAYALIL PUTHEN VEEDU, VADAKKEVILA KIZHAKKENCHERRY, THAZHUTHALA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.VINOY VARGHESE KALLUMOOTTILL RESPONDENT: -------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Crl.A.No. 139 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred by the appellants/counter petitioners 2 and 3 who are the sureties for the first counter petitioner who is the first accused in Sessions Case No.964 of 2006 on the file of the Sessions Court, Kollam. By order dated 12.8.2008 in M.C.No.4 of 2008, the court below ordered imposing penalty of Rs.10,000/- on each of the appellants by forfeiting the bond executed by them since the first accused defaulted in complying with the terms of the bail bond and the appellants failed to ensure the presence of the accused for trial. It is the above order challenged in this appeal. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants who submits that the appellants were poor persons having no capacity to pay the penalty amount and the accused is out of station connected with some contract work and hence, they are not in a position to produce the accused. 3. From the proceedings, it appears that the sessions case pertains to the year 2006 and naturally, the offence might have been committed in the year 2006 or prior Crl.A.No. 139 of 2009 :-2-: to that. However, the first counter petitioner/the first accused was enlarged on bail on the strength of the suretyship of the appellants. The bond amount is Rs.50,000/-. On issuing notice to the appellants, they entered appearance and sought adjournments at several times for producing the accused. From the order, it appears that though time was granted for producing the accused, they did not produce the accused. As submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants, even the charge was not framed against the accused because the accused remains absent. It is under the above circumstances, the court below forfeited the bond and imposed penalty of Rs.10,000/- on each of the appellants. Learned counsel submits that because of the pathetic conditions of the appellants, the amount fixed by the court below may be reduced. In this juncture, it is relevant to note that actually, the bond executed by the appellants is for an amount of Rs.50,000/-, but as per the impugned order, the court below on leniency has fixed only Rs.10,000/- as penalty for each of the appellants. It is relevant to note that the accused is not so far produced by the appellants. Crl.A.No. 139 of 2009 :-3-: In the above circumstances, no interference is called for. The appeal lacks merits and the same is dismissed. V.K.Mohanan, Judge. MBS/ Crl.A.No. 139 of 2009 :-4-: V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- Crl.A.NO. OF 200 -------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T DATED: -1-2009 Crl.A.No. 139 of 2009 :-5-: