IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 22ND AUGUST 2011 / 31ST SRAVANA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2846 of 2004(A) ---------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25/10/2004 IN CRMP.NO. 2248/2004 IN CRA.NO.546/2004 of SESSIONS COURT, THALASSERY MC.NO.22/2004 IN CC.486/2002 of ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THALASSERY .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/ APPELLANTS / RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.RAGHAVAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, KUNHIPARAMBATH HOUSE, MOKERI AMSOM DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. KANDOTH KUMARAN, S/O.KUNHAPPU, KANDOTH HOUSE, PANOOR AMSOM DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE ---------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.ALEX M. THOMBRA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------- Crl.R.P. No.2846 of 2004 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of August 2011 O R D E R The revision petitioners were the sureties of the accused in C.C.No.486/2002. That was a case which was filed against the accused under Sec.138 of the N.I.Act. The accused was absconding. The bond was forfeited and notices were issued to the petitioners under Sec.446 Cr.P.C. They did not respond to the notice. They did not appear in court nor did they offer any explanation why the penalty should not be imposed. Hence the learned Magistrate imposed penalty of Rs.10,000/- each which was the amount covered by the bond executed by them. 2. They filed appeals before the learned Sessions Judge. The appellants remained absent and hence the appeal was dismissed. Though a petition to restore was filed, that also was dismissed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would Crl.R.P. No.2846 of 2004 -: 2 :- submit that subsequently the case filed under Sec.138 of the N.I.Act was settled between the complainant and the accused therein. But no document has been produced to substantiate that plea. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submits that it is a fact that the case was actually settled. 4. It could be seen that the revision petitioners after receipt of the notices issued under Sec.446 Cr.P.C. did not appear in court nor did they offer any explanation. There is no illegality in the procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate. However, considering all the aspects I find that the penalty imposed on the petitioners can be reduced to Rs.750/- each. The revision petitioners are granted one month time to pay the penalty amount. Needless to say that if any amount had already been deposited then only the balance need be deposited. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Jvt