IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2010 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1931 CRL.A.No. 452 of 2010 -------------------------- (AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30/10/2009 IN MC 86/2009 IN SC.388/2008 of the ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-II), KASARGOD) .................... APPELLANT(S)/COUNTER PETITIONER NO.1 ----------------------------------------------- ABDUL RAHIMAN, S/O.MAMMUNHI, AGED 63 YEARS, MADIYAN SUMAYYA MANZIL, MADIYAN ROAD, AJANUR, MANIKKOTTH, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.KAMMAPPU. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Crl.A.No. 452 of 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T In the impugned order dated 30.10.2009 in M.C.No.86 of 2009 in S.C.No.388 of 2008 on the file of the court of Additional Sessions Judge, ADHOC-II, Kasaragod, the appellant is shown as the first counter petitioner who stood as one of the sureties for the second accused in the above sessions case, by which the trial court imposed a penalty of Rs.25,000/- against him. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the second accused, for whom the appellant stood as one of the sureties had gone abroad in search of employment and he happened to be surety at the instance of the second counter petitioner in the above M.C. proceedings. As the second accused was in abroad, the appellant could not produce him and it was, under the above circumstances, the trial court issued Crl.A.NO.452 of 2010 :-2-: the impugned order. 3. As the appellant had stood as one of the sureties for the second accused in the above sessions case and he failed to produce the accused as per the undertaking made by him, I find no fault on the part of the trial court in imposing penalty against him. However, it is to be considered that there is no laches or negligence on the part of the appellant in producing the absconding accused as he is out of India and therefore, I am of the view that the amount ordered as penalty with respect to the appellant can be modified and reduced to the tune of Rs.7500/- which will be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. In the result, this appeal is disposed of modifying the penalty amount and reducing the same to Rs.7500/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Five Hundred only). As per the order dated 16.2.2010 in Crl.M.A.No.1436 of 2010 as directed by this Court, the appellant had deposited a sum of Rs.7500/- towards the compliance of the condition for Crl.A.NO.452 of 2010 :-3-: condoning the delay. As directed by this Court, the appellant had produced the receipt as per memo dated 1.3.2010 showing the remittance. If that be so, the amount of Rs.7500/-, which had already been deposited by the appellant, can be adjusted towards the remittance of the penalty as reduced and fixed by this Court. There will be a direction to the trial court to that effect. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of and the coercive steps, if any, taken pursuant to impugned order are cancelled. sd/- V.K.Mohanan, Judge MBS/ -true copy- P.A.TO JUDGE. Crl.A.NO.452 of 2010 :-4-: V.K.MOHANAN, J. -------------------------------------------- Crl.A.NO. OF 200 ------------------------------------ J U D G M E N T Crl.A.NO.452 of 2010 :-5-: DATED: -2-2010 Crl.A.NO.452 of 2010 :-6-: