IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2009 / 21ST ASWINA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3092 of 2009 ------------------------------ CRA.469/2006 OF SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR DATED 3.08.09 MC.58/06 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, IRINJALAKUDA,DTD.22.05.06. .................... REVN. PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------------- 1. MOHANAN, S/O.ACHUTHAN, ARALIPARAMBIL HOUSE, MURIYAD VILLAGE, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. RAMACHANDRAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, MOOLAKKADAN HOUSE, MURIYAD VILLAGE, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH CHAKYAT RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT -------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: shg/ P.S. GOPINATHAN, J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No. 3092 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 13th day of October, 2009 O R D E R 1. Revision petitioners are the sureties of the accused in C.P. No.108/2008 of on the files of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Irinjalakuda. They got released the accused, who was facing trial for offences under Section 376 IPC and 3 (1) XI of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, on bail after executing a bond for Rs.10,000/- with undertaking of produce the accused as and when called upon. But they failed to produce the accused. Consequently the bail bond was forfeited and notice was issued to the revision petitioners calling upon them to show cause for not imposing penalty. Though they entered appearance and sought for time to produce the accused, later they failed and remained absent. In their absence, taking note that they had no cause to be shown for not imposing penalty, the Crl.R.P.No. 3092 of 2009 -2- learned Magistrate by order dated 22.05.2006 imposed a penalty of Rs.10,000/- each. Feeling aggrieved they preferred Crl.A. No.469/20006 before the Sessions Judge, Thrissur. The learned Sessions Judge declined to interfere with the impugned order. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above order imposing penalty as confirmed in appeal this revision petition was filed. 2. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners didn't assail the order imposing penalty. Only the quantum is disputed. It is submitted that the revision petitioners had later produced the accused before the committal court and the case was committed to the sessions court and in the above circumstances the revision petitioners are entitled to a little more leniancy. In proof of the submission, the learned counsel had produced copy of summons issued from the Sessions Court to the accused. It is also submitted that the revision petitioners are rustic villagers and the penalty imposed is excessive. 3. Taking into account of the above circumstances Crl.R.P.No. 3092 of 2009 -3- and facts of the case I find that the penalty imposed is excessive and that the Revision Petitioners are entitled to leniency and that a penalty of Rs.5,000/- each would met the ends of justice. 4. In the result, the Revision Petition is allowed in part. While confirming the order imposing penalty, the quantum is reduced to Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) each. P.S. GOPINATHAN, JUDGE shg/