IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1932 CRL.A.No. 687 of 2010() ---------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN MC 33/2008 IN SC.184/2008 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, KALPETTA .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT NO.2. ------------------------- SURESHKUMAR, S/O.GOPALAN, RESIDING AT POOJARANKUDIYIL HOUSE, MANALVAYAL P.O., IRULAM, SULTHAN BATHERY. BY ADVS. MR.A.V.JAMES MR.P.DALBI EMMANUEL RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUO MOTO TAKEN BY ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, KALPETTA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.C.S.HRITHIK THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss V.K.MOHANAN,J. ------------------------------ Crl.Appeal No.687 OF 2010 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred by one of the sureties of the 4th accused in Sessions Case No.184/2008 of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (ADHOC-II) Kalpetta, Wayanad, challenging the order dated 21.04.2009 in M.C.No.33/2008, in the above Sessions Case, by which the court below imposed penalty of Rs.50,000/- upon the appellant. 2. From the order impugned, it appears that the absconding accused for whom the appellant stood as sureties involved in the offences punishable under Section 489 (B), 420 r/ w Section 34 IPC. Though notices were ordered to the sureties including the appellant and though they appeared, no reason has been stated for not producing the accused and it was under the above factual background the court below issued the impugned order. As per the undertaking of the appellant, he is bound to produce the Crl.Appeal No.687 OF 2010 2 accused as and when required by the court but the appellant failed to discharge his contractual obligation and therefore I find no reason to interfere with the order impugned. 2. However, the learned counsel submitted that the appellant is hailing from a very poor family and the amount fixed by the court below as penalty is too excessive and the appellant is not in a position to pay the entire amount and therefore seeks leniency of this Court. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, I am of the view that, though I find no illegality, with the reason assigned, to interfere with the order, I am of the view that, the amount fixed by the court below can be modified and reduced the same to the tune of Rs.15,000/-. As directed by this court, by the order dated 25.02.2010 in Crl. M.A.No.1818/2010 the appellant has produced the receipt showing the remittance of a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards the compliance of the condition imposed in the above order and the learned counsel submitted that the said amount can be adjusted towards the penalty amount as refixed by this Crl.Appeal No.687 OF 2010 3 court. In the result, this appeal is disposed of reducing the amount of penalty fromRs.50,000/- t0 Rs.15,000/- and the court below is directed to adjust the amount, remitted by the appellant as per order dated 25.02.2010 for Crl.M.A.No.1818/2010, towards the penalty amount as revised and refixed by this Court. The coercive steps if any taken against the appellant, stands cancelled. Crl. Appeal is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN,JUDGE. mns