IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2011 / 24TH POUSHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 127 of 2011 ------------------------ ( CRA.248/2010 of SESSIONS COURT, THODUPUZHA IN M.C. 18/2010 in CP.25/2009 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PEERUMEDU) .................... PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS: ------------------------------ 1. ABRAHAM, S/O.DEVASI, AGED 50 YEARS, PUKKOLIL HOUSE, CHOOLISHERY KARA, CHOOLISSERY VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. THOBIAS, S/O.LONAPPAN, AGED 55 YEARS, NEELANKAVIL HOUSE, CHOOLISSERY KARA, CHOOLISSERY VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.C.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT(STATE) ------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI K.J. MOHAMMED ANZAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.127 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of January, 2011. ORDER Petitioners are sureties of accused No.2 in C.P.No.25 of 2009 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Peermade. They were proceeded against under Section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in M.C.No.18 of 2010 and penalty was imposed on them. They challenged that order before learned Sessions Judge, Thodupuzha in Crl.Appeal No.248 of 2010 and moved Crl.M.P.No.4541 of 2010 for stay of execution of the order in M.C.No.18 of 2010. Learned Sessions Judge admitted the appeal but refused to grant stay of operation of the order under challenge. Hence this petition challenging the order dismissing Crl.M.P.No.4541 of 2010. 2. The order in M.C.No.18 of 2010 is under challenge in Crl.Appeal No.248 of 2010. That order directed petitioners to pay penalty of Rupees one lakh each. As I stated the appeal is already admitted and learned Sessions Judge is yet to decide correctness of the impugned order in M.C.No.18 of 2010. In that situation and also considering the amount of penalty imposed, it was only proper that operation of the order was stayed until disposal of the appeal. In Crl.MC No.127/2011 2 the circumstances I am inclined to direct that proceedings for recovery of fine from petitioners will stand in abeyance until disposal of Crl.Appeal No.248 of 2010. Hence, it is ordered accordingly. This petition is disposed of as above. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks