IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2009 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3008 of 2009(A) -------------------------------------------- CRL.A.NO.467/2008 OF SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM, M.C.NO.47/07 IN CC.NO.740/2005 OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, ERATTUPETTA. .................... REVISION PETITIONERS/ APPELLANTS/ COUNTER PETITIONERS: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.C.JOSE, S/O.CHACKO, AGED 42 YEARS, KOYAPLACKAL HOUSE, CHENNATTU KARA, POONJAR THEKKEKARA VILLAGE. 2. BIJO JACOB, S/O.CHACKO, KIDANGUTHAZHE HOUSE, MANIYANKUNNU KARA, POONJAR THEKKEKARA VILLAGE. BY ADV. MR.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN. RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. JAYAKRISHNAN. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.3008 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of October, 2009 ORDER Heard. The revision petitioners are the counter petitioners in M.C.No.47 of 2007, a proceeding initiated by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Erattupetta under Section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The revision petitioners were the sureties of the accused in C.C.No.740 of 2005. They got released the accused therein on bail after executing a bond for Rs.10,000/- with an undertaking to produce the accused as and when called upon. But they failed to produce the accused as undertaken by them. Consequently, the learned Magistrate was pleased to forfeit the bail bond and notice was caused calling upon the revision petitioners to show cause why penalty should not be imposed against them. Though the revision petitioner entered appearance through the counsel, they did not show any cause for not imposing penalty. Neither they produced the accused before the court. In the above circumstance, the learned Magistrate imposed a penalty of Rs.10,000/-. 2. Aggrieved by the said order they preferred Criminal Crl.R.P.No.3008 of 2009 2 Appeal No.356 of 2008. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Kottayam while confirming order imposing penalty, the quantum was reduced to Rs.5,000/-. Being aggrieved now this revision petition was filed. 3. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner they got released the accused who was facing trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and in appeal the matter was settled and the accused was acquitted and in the circumstance the revision petitioners alone are now penalized and hence they deserve some more leniency. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, there is some merit in the submission. The revision petitioners are entitled a little more leniency. A penalty amount of Rs.2,500/- would meet the ends of justice. In the result, the revision petition is allowed in part. While confirming the orders imposing penalty, the quantum is reduced to Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand five hundred only) each. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE Skj.