IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2009 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1078 of 2001() ------------------------------ CC.31/1994 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, ADIMALI CRA.65/1997 of SESSIONS COURT, THODUPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANTS 1 AND 3 --------------------- 1. SHAJI, SON OF THANKAPPAN, MALAMUNDAYIL HOUSE, MANNANKANDOM P.O., ADIMALI 2. NARAYANAN, S/O KUNJAN, VARAKIL HOUSE, KARIMKUNNAM P.O., THODUPUZHA BY ADV. SRI.C.V.VASUDEVAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYABHANU(AMICUSCURIAE) SMT.PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1078 of 2001 ORDER ON CMP.NOS.5090/2001 & 5672/2001 DISMISSED 18.3.2009 SD/- V.GIRI, JUDGE (TRUE COPY) P.A TO JUDGE V.GIRI, J ------------------- Crl.R.P.1078/2001 -------------------- Dated this the 18th day of March, 2009 ORDER Petitioners stood as sureties to ensure the appearance of accused 2 and 4 in C.C.No.31/94 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Adimali. The accused defaulted appearance. There upon learned Magistrate cancelled the bail. M.C.No.29/1996 was registered against the petitioners and another surety. The case against the other person was thereafter, split up and re- numbered as M.C.No.9/97. In so far as the present case is concerned, learned Magistrate ordered that the sureties are liable to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-. 2. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the order passed by the learned Magistrate forfeiting the bond executed by the sureties, but reduced the fine amount from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.1,000/-, essentially taking note of the fact that accused Nos.2 and 4, for whom the petitioners had stood as sureties, Crl.R.P.1078/2001 2 had later appeared before the Court below and the case against them had also ended in acquittal. The present revision is against the order passed by the learned Magistrate. 3. Having perused the orders passed by the Courts below and especially taking note of the fact that the appellate Court had reduced the fine amount, I find no reason to interfere with the orders passed by the Courts below. It is a fact that the accused had not appeared and that therefore the bond executed by the sureties was liable to be forefeited. The appellate Court had shown leniency in reducing the fine amount from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.1,000/-. No further interference is either warranted or justified. In the result, Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs