IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 5TH JUNE 2009 / 15TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 62 of 2001() ---------------------------- CRA NO.112/96 OF SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI M.C.NO.56/96 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, MANJERI REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANTS/COUNTER PETITIONERS: --------------------- (*)1. PULIKKATHODI CHOZHI, S/O.RAMAN, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. (DIED. LRS IMPLEADED) 2. KOOLIYODAN MOHAMMED, S/O.ABDULLA, (P.O.) MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. ADDL.REVISIONAL PETITIONERS: 3. KARTHIYANI, W/O.PULIKKATHOI CHOZHI, AGED 65 YEARS, KAVALANGAT HOUSE, N.S.S.COLLEGE P.O., MANJERI. 4. SABARI DEVI, D/O.PULIKKATHOI CHOZHI, AGED 45 YEARS, KAVALANGAT HOUSE, N.S.S.COLLEGE P.O., MANJERI. 5. VALSALA, D/O.PULIKKATHOI CHOZHI, AGED 40 YEARS, KAVALANGAT HOUSE, N.S.S.COLLEGE P.O., MANJERI. (*)REVISION PETITIONER NO.1 DIED.ADDL.REVISION PETITIONERS 3 TO 4 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 5.6.2009 ON CRL.M.A.NO.5366/2009. BY ADV. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN RESPONDENT(S)/RSPONDENT/PETITIONER: --------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.62 of 2001 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of June, 2009. ORDER This revision is in challenge of judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Manjeri in Crl.Appeal No.112 of 1996 confirming the order in M.C.No.56 of 1996 of the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri whereby petitioners and accused in the case were directed to pay penalty of Rs.10,000/-. Learned Sessions Judge while disposing of the appeal clarified that the penalty of Rs.10,000/- is the aggregate amount payable by the petitioners as well as the accused. 2. Petitioner No.1 died during the pendency of this revision. His legal representatives are impleaded as additional petitioners. 3. Learned counsel contended that penalty imposed is excessive. 4. It is not disputed that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 bailed out the accused in S.T.No.92 of 1994 on executing bond for Rs.10,000/- each, accused failed to appear in the trial court and thus petitioners violated the terms and conditions of the bond. They were given notice to show cause why penalty should not be imposed on them but they did not turn up. Hence petitioners are liable to pay penalty. What remained is regarding the quantum of penalty payable. Learned Sessions Judge confirmed the order of learned Chief Judicial Crl.R.P.No.62/2001 2 Magistrate as regards the penalty payable. On the facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that aggregate sum of Rs.7,500/- (Rupees Seven thousand and five hundred only) is sufficient penalty. The liability of the petitioners is fixed as Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand and five hundred only) each. Revision Petition is disposed of with the above clarification. Crl.M.A.No.265 of 2001 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks Crl.R.P.No.62/2001 3 THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. Crl.R.P.No.62 of 2001 ORDER 5th June, 2009.