IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2008 / 6TH CHAITHRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 976 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRA.381/2006 of SESSIONS COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA MC.13/2006 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: REV.PETITIONE/2ND APPELLANT/2ND COUNTER PETITIONER -------------------------------------------------------------------- P.K.SADASIVAN, S/O.KOCHURAMAN, PUTHENVILAYIL VEEDU, PARAKKARA MURI, PANDALAM THEKKEKKARA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI. K.SHAJ SRI.B.BALRAJ SRI.SAJJU.S RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. PUZHAKKARA MUHAMMED THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Crl. R.P. NO. 976 of 2008 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 26-03-2008 ORDER Petitioner was one of the two sureties of the accused in S.T. No. 89 of 2003 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathanamthitta which was a prosecution under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused in the said case was sentenced to imprisonment . His conviction and sentence were confirmed in appeal. The accused did not surrender before the trial court for receiving the sentence. Thereupon, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate initiated proceedings against the two sureties including the petitioners under Sec. 446 Cr.P.C. To the show cause notice issued to the petitioner he had no cause to be shown except that the accused was absconding. Thereupon the Chief Judicial Magistrate imposed the entire bond amount of Rs. 25,000/- as penalty. The petitioner as well as the other sureties preferred an appeal before the Sessions court, Pathanamthitta as Crl. Appeal No. 381 of 2006. That court dismissed the appeal confirming the order passed by the trial court. Hence this Revision by one of the sureties. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner Crl.R.P. 976 of 2008 -:2:- submitted that pursuant to the appellate order passed by the Sessions Court the accused in S.T. No. 89 of 2003 preferred a revision before this Court as Crl.R.P. No. 3817 of 2006 and this court disposed of the said revision on 31-10-2006 granting him time to pay the cheque amount and the matter has since been settled between the complainant and the accused in S.T. 89 of 2003. 3. Considering the above development as well as the further fat that the petitioner does not appear to have any active or passive role in the accused making himself scarce, I am inclined to reduce the penalty to Rs. 5,000/-. Accordingly, the orders passed by the courts below are modified reducing the penalty payable by the petitioner to Rs. 5,000/- which shall be deposited by the petitioner before the trial court within one month from today failing which proceedings shall be initiated for realising the amount. Crl.M.C. is disposed of as above. Sd/-V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE) ani. /true copy/