IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 27TH AUGUST 2010 / 5TH BHADRA 1932 CRL.A.No. 1770 of 2010() ------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26/07/2010 IN MC.64/2010 IN SC.314/2010 of ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-III), KASARAGODE .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENTS 1 & 2/SURETIES: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ABDUL BASHEER,AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED,PALLIPUZHA,PALLIKARA POST AND VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK,H.NO.9/414,PALLIKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH. 2. C.KUNHIBI,AGED 51 YEARS, W/O.P.A.IBRAHIM,PALLIPUZHA, PALLIKARA POST AND VILLAGE, H.NO.9/340, PALLIKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH. BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU RESPONDENT(S): STATE: --------------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.BENNY VARGHESE THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. ---------------------- Crl.A.No.1770 OF 2010 --------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of August, 2010 O R D E R ~~~~~~~ This is an appeal preferred under Section 449 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appellants were the sureties of the 3rd accused in Sessions Case 314/2010 on the file of the Additional Session's Judge (Adhoc-III), Kasargod. They got released the 3rd accused on bail after executing a bond undertaking to produce the 3rd accused on all posting dates. Since they failed to produce the 3rd accused as undertaken, proceedings were initiated under Section 446 of the code of Criminal Procedure by registering a case as M.C.64/2010. Notices were served upon the appellants calling upon them to show cause why penalty should not be imposed. But, they did not show any cause for not imposing penalty. On behalf of the appellants, an application was filed seeking time for production of the accused before the court. The learned Sessions Judge by the order impugned imposed a penalty of Rs.10,000/- each stating the appellants had not shown any cause for not imposing penalty. Feeling aggrieved, this appeal was preferred. Crl.A.No.1770/2010 2 2. Having heard the leaned counsel for the appellants, I find that the learned Sessions Judge was correct in arriving at a conclusion that there is failure to produce the accused as undertaken by the appellants. Hence, the learned Sessions Judge was right in initiating proceedings for imposing penalty. However, taking note that appellants had sought time for production of the 3rd accused therein and subsequently, he surrendered before the trial court, I find that the appellants are entitled to remission of a portion of the bond amount and that a penalty of Rs.2,500/- each would meet the ends of justice. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. While confirming the order imposing penalty, the quantum is reduced to Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand five hundred only) each. (P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE) ps Crl.A.No.1770/2010 3