IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3715 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.2/2008 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT-II, MAVELIKKARA MC.18/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, CHENGANNUR (IN CC 377/2005) .................... REVN. PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/COUNTER PETITIONERS --------------------------------------------------- 1. MONIKUTTY, W/O KOSHY, PUTHUPPALLY LEKSHAMVEEDU COLONY, ERAMATHUR MURI, THRIPPERUNTHURA. 2. GOPINATHAN, S/O NANU, MANOJ BHAVANAM, CHENNITHALA THRIPPERUNTHURA, ERAMATHUR MURI. BY ADV. SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR SMT.A.SALINI LAL RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M.KAMAPPU, THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. -------------------------------------------------- Crl.Revision Petition No. 3715 of 2008 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of November, 2008 O R D E R Revision petitioners are the sureties of the accused in C.C.377/2005 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate -II, Chengannoor. By executing a bond undertaking to produce the accused, if he fails to appear as and when called for. Petitioners got the accused released on bail. The accused subsequently failed to appear. In spite of notices, petitioners did not produce the accused. Learned Magistrate, cancelled the bond and issued notice to the petitioners to show cause why the bond shall not be forfeited and the penalty should not be imposed against them under Section 446 of Cr.P.C. Though petitioners appeared, they did not show any reason. Learned Magistrate, thereafter, passed an order directing the petitioners to pay penalty of Rs.5,000/- each. Petitioners challenged that order before the Additional Sessions Court, Mavelikkara in Crl.Appeal No.2/2008. Learned Additional Sessions Judge on re-appreciation of the materials Crl.R.P.No.3715/2008 - 2 - confirmed the order and dismissed the appeal. It is challenged in the revision. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners was heard. The learned counsel submitted that though the accused did not originally appeared in C.C.377/2005, subsequently judgment in C.C.377/2005 was challenged before the Sessions Court and the sentence was suspended. It was argued that failure of the accused to appear was due to brain tumor and accused had undergone a major surgery and in such circumstances, courts below should have viewed the matter leniently, and no penalty should have been imposed. 3. On hearing the learned counsel and going through the orders of the courts below, I do not find any reason to interfere this order. There was no procedural irregularity. Both the courts have considered all the relevant aspects. Petitioners who had executed a bond undertaking to produce the accused and Crl.R.P.No.3715/2008 - 3 - failed to produce in spite of the directions are bound to pay the penalty as provided in the bond. Learned Magistrate only imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, which is quite reasonable. In the result, Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE skr