IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2010 / 27TH ASWINA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3042 of 2010 (A) ------------------------------ (CRMP. 3263/2009 of SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM MC.10/2008 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOLLAM) .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/IST COUNTER PETITIONER --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RANGANATHAN ACHARI, S/O.THANKAPPAN ACHARI, AGED 64 YEARS, KIZHAKEDATHU, PATTATHANAM CHERI, VADAKKEVILA VILLAGE, KOLLAM. BY ADVS. SRI. SIJU KAMALASANAN SMT.BINDU GEORGE RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. VILLAGE OFFICER, VADAKKEVILA VILLAGE, KOLLAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SMT.P.N.SUMANGALA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: VK V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------- Crl. R.P.No.3042 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of October, 2010. O R D E R The revision petitioner stood as a surety for the accused in C.C.No.221/07 of the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate-Kollam and on the basis of the Bond executed by the revision petitioner along with another surety, the accused was released on bail but subsequently the accused jumped over the bail and inspite of the notice to the revision petitioner, the accused was not produced and accordingly a penalty of Rs.20,000/- was imposed against the revision petitioner as well as against the other sureties u/s.446 of Cr.P.C. 2. Aggrieved by the order dated 31.12.2008 in M.C.10/08 of the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate-Kollam, the revision petitioner herein preferred a belated appeal before the Sessions Court-Kollam and the learned Sessions Judge by an order dated 7.4.2010 in Crl.M.P.No.3263/09, in the belated un-numbered appeal, dismissed the petition to condone the delay and 2 Crl. R.P.No.3042 of 2010 consequently the appeal was also dismissed. It is against the above order, the revision petitioner preferred this present petition. 3. The accused was released on bail on the basis of the undertaking of the revision petitioner and it is for the revision petitioner to produce the accused as and when required by the courts below but the revision petitioner has miserably failed to produce the accused and the revision petitioner is not in a position atleast to furnish the wear abouts of the accused. As the revision petitioner has failed to discharge his contractual obligation, I find no illegality with the order impugned. However, while upholding the correctness and legality of the order, I am of the view that the penalty amount can be modified and reduced to Rs.7,500/- which will be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. In the result, this revision petition is disposed of, upholding the correctness of the order of the learned Magistrate by reducing the penalty amount from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.7,500/- and the revision petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.7,500/- 3 Crl. R.P.No.3042 of 2010 being the penalty. The revision petitioner has already deposited a sum of Rs.5,000/- as per the order of this court dated 17.8.2010 in Crl.M.A.No.7706/10. The amount so deposited can be adjusted towards the amount now revised and refixed by this court and the revision petitioner need to further deposit a sum of Rs.2,500/- only. Thus accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.2,500/-, within one month from today, towards the full settlement of the penalty amount as revised and refixed by this court. If there is any failure on the part of the revision petitioner in depositing Rs.2,500/-, within the stipulated time, the trial court can take appropriate steps for the realisation of the said amount. This revision petition is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. ami/