IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND APRIL 2008 / 13TH CHAITHRA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 1319 of 2008 ------------------------- MC.27/1996 of II ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER: PETITIONERS ----------------------- 1. OMANA, W/O.RESILAYYAN, PONNAMCODE, PUNNATHANAM, MOONGODE P.O., PAYAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. RESILAYYAN, -DO- -DO- BY ADV. SRI.S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. M.S. BREEZE THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.M.C.No. 1319 of 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2008 ORDER Petitioners were proceeded against by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Kollam in M.C.No.27 of 1996 under Section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the footing that they had stood as sureties for the third accused in S.C.No.89 of 1996 before the said court and on account of the failure on the part of the third accused in the above S.C.case to appear before court, the petitioners had become liable as sureties. According to the petitioners, they never stood as sureties for the said accused in S.C.No.89 of 1996. The property comprised in Survey No.361/5 (old survey No.410/1/6)of Vilappil Village, Neyyattinkara Taluk belonged jointly to the petitioners and the petitioners had sold the property to one Pushpangi, the mother of the third accused in S.C.No.89 of 1996 and some other persons styling themselves as the petitioners took up the responsibility of producing the third accused before the court and executed the bond styling 2 themselves as the petitioners herein. The petitioners came to know of the proceedings only when revenue recovery proceedings were initiated against the property of the petitioners in M.C.No.27 of 1996 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court. Thereupon the petitioners moved the Sessions Court thrice seeking exemption from the liability in M.C.No.27 of 1996. Two of the petitions filed by the petitioners were rejected by the Sessions Court and the third petition registered as Crl.M.P.No.2111/2000 stands posted to 5-7-2008. 2. This Court called for a report from the Sessions Court, Kollam. As per letter dated 28-3-2008, the learned Sessions Judge has reported that the contention of the petitioners that they never stood as sureties for the third accused in S.C.No.89 of 1996 and that the person in whose favour they had assigned their property might have misused the tax receipt obtained in their favour for that property and might have impersonated the petitioners and executed a bond as if they were petitioners herein, is a matter which requires investigation in the course of which the signatures and thumb impressions in the bail bond will have to be compared with those of the petitioners. 3. Since the petitioners are asserting that they did not stand 3 sureties for the third accused in S.C.No.89 of 1996, interests of justice require that the matter is enquired into thoroughly through the police on the basis of a report to be called for by the Sessions Judge before proceeding to reject the contention of the petitioners. This Crl.M.C.is accordingly disposed of directing the Sessions Judge, Kollam to conduct thorough enquiry through the police in Crl.M.P.No.2111/2000 and pass appropriate orders according to law. If, after the enquiry, it is revealed that the petitioners were not the sureties of the third accused in S.C.No.89/1996, that court shall exonerate the petitioners from the liability in M.C.NO.27 of 1996. All further proceedings in execution of the order passed in M.C.No.27 of 1996 shall be kept in abeyance until the conclusion of the enquiry and disposal of the matter by the Sessions Court. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE ks.