IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2011 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2829 of 2011() ------------------------------------------ CRA.113/2010 of IIIRD ADDL.SESSIONS COURT-, KOZHIKODE MC.8/2009 OF SPL.JUDICIAL IST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT(MARAD CASES) KOZHIKODE. .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. VINUDA M.K., W/O.BALAN, PANANGATTU PARAMBIL, KOLATHARA POST, CHERUVANNUR, KOZHIKODE. 2. MURALEEDHARAN M.K., LATHIKA, S/O.PADMANABHAN, KOLATHARA POST, CHERUVANNUR, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN SRI.HANSON.P.MATHEW SRI.P.V.ANOOP RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/ COMPLAINANT & STATE -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-31. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.KOCHUMOL KODUVATH THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2829 of 2011 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2011 O R D E R Petitioners are the sureties of an accused proceeded for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “the Act”) in S.T.No.1081/05 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of the First Class (Marad Cases), Kozhikode. They were proceeded under Section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure {for short “the Code”}, on default of the accused in the above case, to appear on the posting date, the bond executed by the petitioners were forfeited. The magistrate, not being satisfied with the cause shown, had directed the petitioners to pay the sum fixed under the bond as penalty. Sessions Judge, in their appeal, modified and reduced the penalty to a sum of Rs.5,000/- each. Challenge in the Crl.R.P.No.2829 of 2011 :: 2 :: revision is against the quantum of penalty as modified by the Sessions Judge. 2. Proceedings covered by S.T.No. 1081/05 have already been terminated with the accused undergoing the sentence and paying the compensation awarded to the complainant, according to the counsel. A copy of the order passed by the magistrate over the execution of sentence against the accused as indicated above, has been produced for my perusal. In the circumstances, counsel pleads for reducing the quantum of penalty imposed against the sureties. 3. Having regard to the circumstances pleaded and also the submissions made that the petitioners were only sureties and the proceedings against the accused under Section 138 of the Act have been terminated, I find, the penalty imposed against the petitioners can be Crl.R.P.No.2829 of 2011 :: 3 :: reduced to Rs.1,000/- each with default term of imprisonment by detention in civil prison for a period of 15 days. Ordered accordingly. 4. Petitioners shall pay the penalty, as modified above, within a period of two weeks from today before the magistrate court, failing which the magistrate shall take necessary steps under Section 446(2) of the Code against the defaulting surety/sureties. Revision is disposed of as above. Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE sk/- //true copy// P.S. to Judge.