IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 27TH MAGHA 1930 CRL.A.No. 159 of 2009 (MC.85/2008 in S.C.No.468/2006 of Addl.Sessions Court (Adhoc-I)(in charge of Adhoc-II),Thalassery CC.330/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, THALASSERY) .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENT/SURETIES: ----------------------- 1. KUNHIKKANNAN,S/O. KELAPPAN NAPPATTAKKOLL HOUSE, PERINGALAM AMSOM, PULLOOKKARA DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK. 2. VIJAYAN, S/O.KORUMBAN ABDUL AZEEZ NAMBIAR, VALLUMMALAL HOUSE PERINGALAM AMSOM, PULLOOKKARA DESOM THALASSERY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.KAMMAPPU. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Crl.A.No. 159 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T The appellants herein are the sureties for accused No.4 in S.C.No.468 of 2006 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc-II), Thalassery. The above sessions case was instituted upon a police report in Crime No.193 of 2005 of Chokli Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143,147,148,341,324 read with Section 149 of I.P.C. Though the fourth accused was released on bail bond upon the suretyship of the appellants, he jumped over the bail condition. Thus, the court below is constrained to initiate proceedings under Section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and accordingly, M.C.No.85 of 2008 was registered. By order dated 17.3.2008 of the Sessions Court, Thalassery in M.C.No.85 of 2008, a sum of Rs.15,000/- was ordered as penalty after forfeiting the bond amount. It is the above order of imposing penalty of Rs.15,000/- challenged in this appeal. 2. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants and also the learned Public Prosecutor. Crl.A.No. 159 of 2009 :-2-: 3. Learned counsel submits that the sureties are poor coolies and they are not in a position to pay that much amount as penalty. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel that though initially, the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thalassery had committed the case for trial to the Sessions Court as the offence alleged included an offence under Section 308 I.P.C., subsequently, as per the order of the Sessions Court in Crl.M.P.No.1525 of 2008 in S.C.No.168 of 2006, the offence under Section 308 I.P.C. was deleted and as no offence triable by the Sessions Court was disclosed, the case was remanded back to the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thalassery. Thus, the fourth accused, for whom the appellants stood as sureties, had appeared before the trial court viz., the J.F.C.M.Court, Thalassery and faced the trial in C.C.No.330 of 2008 and subsequently, by Annexure I order, the learned Magistrate acquitted all the accused. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that considering the above development occurred during the trial of the case, a lenient view may be taken. 4. Being the sureties, it is the duty of the appellants to ensure the presence of the accused for whom they stood as sureties so as to proceed with the trial. As the appellants failed to Crl.A.No. 159 of 2009 :-3-: produce the accused, the court took proceedings and therefore, it cannot be said that the order is illegal or incorrect. However, as per the subsequent development, the fourth accused has already appeared before the trial court and he faced the trial which finally culminated in Annexure-I judgment. If that be so, I am of the view that the amount fixed as penalty by the impugned order can be reduced. As per the impugned order, each of the appellants was directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- as penalty. 5. In the light of the subsequent development as indicated above, I am of the view that the said amount can be reduced and refixed as Rs.2000/- to be paid by each of the appellants. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per the order dated 28.1.2009 in Crl.M.A.No.571 of 2009, each of the appellants was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1750/- and accordingly, they have deposited the said amount and therefore, they need to pay only a sum of Rs.250/- so as to make up the revised and refixed amount of Rs.2000/-. 6. Having regard to the entire circumstances mentioned above, each of the appellants is directed to pay a sum of Rs.250/- (Rupees Two Hundred and Fifty only) in addition to Rs.1750/- which they have already deposited as per order dated 28.1.2009 Crl.A.No. 159 of 2009 :-4-: in Crl.M.A.No.571 of 2009 within two weeks from today. If the amount is so paid, after adjusting an amount of Rs.1750/- which was deposited by each of the appellants as directed above, the same shall be appropriated towards the total amount revised and refixed by this Court. Thus, if the additional amount of Rs.250/- is paid by each of the appellants within the time limit prescribed above, all further coercive steps shall be dropped. If the additional amount is not paid as directed above, the court below is free to proceed with the coercive steps for the realisation of the amount so refixed by this Court. The Crl.Appeal is disposed of as above. V.K.Mohanan, Judge MBS/ Crl.A.No. 159 of 2009 :-5-: V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- Crl.A.NO. OF 200 -------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T Crl.A.No. 159 of 2009 :-6-: DATED: -1-2009