IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 2ND APRIL, 2009 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1931 CRL.A.No. 627 of 2009 (MC.91/2008 OF Additional District and Sessions Judge (Ad Hoc) Court-I, Kollam) .................... APPELLANTS/COUNTER PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------------------------ 1. SRI.SIVAKUMAR, S/O.CHELLAPPAN PILLAI, KUTTIKKATTU VEEDU, KUREEPUZHA, SAKTHIKULANGARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 2. SMT.SIVAKUMARY, D/O.THANKAMMA AMMA, ERAVICHAAZHIKATHU VEEDU, MEENATHU CHERRY, SAKTHIKULANGARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 3. SMT.PRASANNAKUMARY, D/O.ANANDHAVALLY AMMA, KUTTIKKATTU VEEDU, KUREEPUZHA, SAKTHIKULANGARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM) RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: --------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.NAZAR. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Crl.A.No. 627 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2009 J U D G M E N T First appellant is the first accused in S.C.No.1589 of 2006 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Ad Hoc) Court-I, Kollam and appellants 2 and 3 are the sureties for the first appellant who is involved in a case punishable for the offence under Section 308 of I.P.C. He was released on bail on the basis of the bond executed by appellants 2 and 3, but subsequently, he jumped over bail. Consequently, the court below registered M.C.No.91 of 2008 under Section 446 of the Cr.P.C. and finally passed Annexure A1 order directing each of the appellants to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as penalty. It is the above order challenged in this appeal. 2. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as the leaned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants, as averred in para 4 of the appeal memorandum, submitted that the first appellant/first accused has already appeared before the court Crl.A.No. 627 of 2009 :-2-: below on 29.11.2008 and the Sessions Court has already enlarged him on bail upon fresh surety bond executed by the other persons and therefore, a lenient view may be taken. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the above submission stating that the appellants 2 and 3 and also the first accused violated the bail condition and therefore, they cannot escape from the liability and though the bond amount was Rs.20,000/-, the court below has directed to pay only Rs.10,000/- each and as such, there is no illegality and no interference is warranted. 4. Considering the fact that the first appellant/first accused jumped over bail and appellants 2 and 3 failed to secure the presence of the first accused at appropriate time, it cannot be said that the order of the court below is illegal or wrong. But, it is brought to my notice that subsequently, the first appellant/first accused appeared before the court below and he is again released on bail which is not disputed. Therefore, according to me, while confirming the order, the amount fixed by the court below can be reduced. 5. In the result, each of the appellant is directed to pay Rs.1000/- as penalty instead of Rs.10,000/- fixed by the court below as per order under challenge. When this Court considered Crl.A.No. 627 of 2009 :-3-: the delay petition, by order dated 19.3.2009, each of the appellants was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1000/- as a condition to condone the delay. As directed by this Court, the appellants deposited the amount and receipt produced before this Court showing the remittance. If that be so, the amount, that has already been deposited by the appellants before the court below, can be adjusted and treated as payment of the penalty amount as revised and refixed by this Court in this order. Accordingly, the court below is directed to adjust the said amount which has already been deposited by the appellants as per order of this Court dated 19.3.2009 towards the satisfaction of the penalty amount as revised and refixed by this Court. The court below is further directed to drop all coercive steps, including if any already taken, in pursuance of the order impugned. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. V.K.Mohanan, Judge MBS/ Crl.A.No. 627 of 2009 :-4-: V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- Crl.A.NO. OF 200 -------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T Crl.A.No. 627 of 2009 :-5-: DATED: -3-2009 Crl.A.No. 627 of 2009 :-6-: