IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 21ST MAGHA 1930 CRL.A.No. 299 of 2009() ----------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21/12/2005 IN MC 17/2005 IN SC.276/2001 OF THE COURT OF ADDL.SESSIONS (ADHOC) -II, KASARAGOD. .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANTS/COUNTER PETITIONERS -------------------------------------------- 1. RAJU, S/O.KANNAN, PANANGODE COLONY, COLOM VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. H.GOPALAN, S/O.PALLATHAN, PANANGODE COLONY, COLOM VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 3. HARIJAN CHATHAN, S/O.KADIYATHAN, UDAYAPURAM, PANANGODE COLONY, COLOM VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY P.P. SRI V. TEKCHAND. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------------- CRL.A. No.299 of 2009 ---------------------------------------------- Dated, 10th February, 2009. JUDGMENT The first appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.276/2001, on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, (Ad hoc )-II, Kasaragode, a case instituted for the offence punishable under section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. Appellants Nos. 2 and 3 are the sureties for the first appellant. The first appellant/accused was released on bail on executing a bond on 17.12.2001, to which appellants 2 and 3 are the sureties, for an amount of Rs.10.000/-. As the first appellant/accused jumped over the bail conditions, the court below registered M.C.No.17/2005 in S.C.No.276/2001. From the order it appears that though notices were issued to the appellants, they did not appear before the court and no explanation was offered. Accordingly, the court below ordered to realise the entire bond amount as penalty. It is the above order challenged in this appeal. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and also the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. The learned counsel submitted that the appellants are poor persons and they are not having sufficient financial capacity to comply with the order by depositing the amount. It is also pointed Crl.A.299/09 -:2:- out by the learned counsel that the Ist appellant/accused had subsequently appeared and he is facing the trial. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that a lenient view may be taken in the matter. It appears from the impugned order that the case is pertained to the year 2001 and the case is still pending trial because of the non-cooperation of the first appellant/accused and the 2nd and 3rd appellants failed to procure the first appellant and thereby, they violated the bond condition. Though notices were served on the appellants, none of them appeared and no explanation was offered for the non appearance of the first appellant and with respect to the failure on the part of the appellants 2 and 3. It was in the above circumstances, the court below passed the impugned order. Therefore, on consideration of the facts stated above, it cannot be said that the order impugned is illegal or incorrect. However, the learned counsel submitted that the first appellant had appeared before the court below and he is facing the trial even though trial is not completed. If that be so, I am of the view that the amount ordered as penalty can be reduced from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.2,500/-. 4. In the circumstances explained above, the penalty amount fixed by the court below as per the impugned order is reduced from Rs. 10,000/- and refixed as Rs.2500/-. Each of the appellants are directed to pay the amount of Rs.2500/- to the court below within one month from Crl.A.299/09 -:3:- today. The court below is directed to defer the coercive steps , if any, already taken pursuant to the impugned order. If the revised amount is not paid within the stipulated time, the court below is free to take coercive steps for the realisation of the amount so revised and refixed. The Crl.Appeal is disposed of as above. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE kvm/- Crl.A.299/09 -:4:- V.K.MOHANAN, J. No.... Judgment/Order Dated: