IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 27TH MARCH, 2009 / 6TH CHAITHRA, 1931 CRL.A.No. 480 of 2009 (AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28/01/2009 IN MC.32 /2008 IN SC.354/2007 of ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE (ADHOC II), KASARAGODE.) .................... APPELLANTS/COUNTER PETITIONERS: -------------------------------------------------------- 1. BALAKRISHNA, S/O.SANKAPPA, AGED 52 YEARS NEAR DINESH BEEDI COMPANY, KUNHATHUR VILLAGE, KASARAGODE. 2. RAJAN.A.P., S/O.KRISHNAN, BUS CONDUCTOR, SRI NIVAS, KJM ROAD, MANKESHWAR, UDYAVAR. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT:COMPLAINANT & STATE: --------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.PUZHAKKARA MOHAMMED. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Crl.A.No. 480 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred under Section 449 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the appellants, who stood as sureties, for the accused in Sessions Case No.354 of 2007 on the file of the court of Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-II), Kasaragode. As the accused jumped over bail, notices were issued to the appellants/sureties and since they have not offered any explanation for not producing the accused, the learned Judge passed the impugned order directing the appellants/sureties to pay penalty of Rs.10,000/- each. It was ordered that if the amount could not be realised from the appellants, they should undergo simple imprisonment for three months in civil prison. On the basis of the request of the appellants/sureties, one month time was granted to pay the penalty amount. It is the above order challenged in this appeal. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as the Public Prosecutor. 3. When the above matter came up for Crl.A.No. 480 of 2009 :-2-: consideration on 11.3.2009, this Court admitted the appeal and granted interim stay of the impugned order in Crl.M.A.No.2581 of 2009. By the said order, the appellants/petitioners were directed to deposit a sum of Rs.7500/- each within ten days from the date of the order. When the matter came up for admission on 23.3.2009, it was reported that the amount was not deposited as directed. Today, the learned counsel submits that the appeal may be disposed of taking a lenient view. 4. There is no dispute regarding the liability of the appellants in paying the penalty amount as they failed to procure the presence of the accused for whom they stood as sureties. No sufficient ground is made out to interfere with the order of the court below. Though they have appeared before the court below, the court below was also not convinced with the reasons for not producing the accused. Though the impugned order is dated 28.1.2009, the court below granted one month's time to pay the penalty amount. As indicated above, this Court also, while granting stay, had given time to deposit a sum of Rs.7500/- by each of the appellants, but the same was also not complied with. Crl.A.No. 480 of 2009 :-3-: In the above circumstances, the appellants deserve no leniency and accordingly, as there is no merit in the appeal, the appeal is dismissed. V.K.Mohanan, Judge MBS/ Crl.A.No. 480 of 2009 :-4-: V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- Crl.A.NO. OF 200 -------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T DATED: -3-2009 Crl.A.No. 480 of 2009 :-5-: