IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2011 / 7TH SRAVANA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1740 of 2011() ------------------------------ CRA.70/2009 of SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM MC.58/2008 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT II (FOREST OFFENCES),PUNALUR .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S): APPELLANTS/COUNTER PETITIONERS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MATHEW SCARIYA, S/O.SCARIYA, PUTHEN VEEDU, UPPUKUZHI, CHALIYAKKARA MURI, THENMALA VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK. 2. MARIYAMMA CHACKO, W/O.CHACKO, VATTAPPARAMPIL VEEDU, KARAVALOOR SOUTH MURI, KARAVALOOR VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK. 3. VASANTHA, W/O.SAJEEVKUMAR, VIJI BHAVAN, KANAL COLONY, CHERUTHANNUR MURI, THENMALA VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.ABDUL JAWAD RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-31. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. SABU SREEDHARAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P No.1740 OF 2011 -------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of July 2011 ORDER Revision is against the order imposing penalty in a proceeding under Section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which arose from M.C No.58/2008 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -II (Forest Offences), Punalur. The first revision petitioner was the accused involved in a crime registered over a forest offence in relation to transportation of forest produce in a pickup van owned and registered in his name. That motor vehicle, seized by the forest officials with the forest produce, on the application moved by the accused (first revision petitioner) was released to him subject to conditions, which directed execution of bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- by the accused (registered owner of the vehicle) and also two sureties for identical sum by each of them. The second and third petitioners, as sureties of the accused, joined him in executing a bond for release of the vehicle on interim custody. Later, in violation of the terms and conditions of the bond, it was reported that the vehicle was involved in another case that too for forest offence. That being reported, the learned Magistrate directed for production of the vehicle. Then, the registered owner/accused, who is the first revision petitioner herein, filed objection that he could not produce the vehicle Crl.R.P No.1740/2011 - 2 - since he had already transferred the vehicle to another. In such circumstance, the learned Magistrate imposed a penalty of Rs.75,000/- each against the registered owner (accused) and also his two sureties, the revision petitioners, with default term of simple imprisonment for three months in civil prison. As against the order by the learned Magistrate, all of them, the accused and the sureties, preferred an appeal questioning the imposition of penalty. The learned Sessions Judge, Kollam, after considering the submissions made with reference to the materials available, confirmed the order of penalty imposed, but reduced it to Rs.60,000/- each by the accused and his sureties. Revision is directed against the aforesaid order. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and also the learned Public Prosecutor. Having regard to the facts and circumstances presented in the case, which would demonstrate that the first revision petitioner had flouted the conditions imposed for getting interim custody of the vehicle involved in the case, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners confined his submissions to seek reduction of penalty so far as the second and third petitioners, the sureties under the bond, contending that though they have violated the terms and conditions under the bond, still the penalty imposed against them is excessive and it requires modification. Both of them are ladies and at the time when the bond was executed, they never had any Crl.R.P No.1740/2011 - 3 - contemplation that the conditions thereof would be violated by the accused, the first revision petitioner, by transferring the vehicle, nor of the involvement of the vehicle in any forest offence, is the submission of the counsel. Flouting of the undertaking given before the court by way of a bond, for release of interim custody of a valuable motor vehicle, which was involved in a case, cannot be viewed lightly since it tantamounts to interference with the administration of justice and, further, with the fair trial of the case as well. However, having regard to the fact that second and third petitioners are women, and also the submissions made by the learned counsel on their behalf, I find, as against them, the penalty imposed can be reduced to Rs.40,000/- each. So far as the first revision petitioner, the penalty as modified by the learned Sessions Judge shall remain in tact. In default of payment of penalty for the sum as indicated above, the first revision petitioner (accused) shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months, and second and third sureties, imprisonment for a period of two months each in civil prison. Revision is disposed as indicated above. Sd/- vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge