IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2008 / 10TH ASHADHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2457 of 2008() ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16/06/2008 IN CRMP 1931/2008 IN CRA.209/2008 of SESSIONS COURT, THALASSERY .................... PETITIONER: APPELLANTS ---------------------- 1. MAYILADI VEETTIL GOVINDAN, S/O.KUNHIRAMAN, AGED 55 YEARS, PANNIYOOR AMSOM DESOM, CHAVANAPUZHA, TALIPARAMBA TALUK. 2. PAYYAN VALAPPIL GOVINDAN, S/O.KUNHAPPA, AGED 75 YEARS, TALIPARAMBA AMSOM DESOM, ALLAMKULAM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.B.PREMNATH (E) SRI. BIJU K.JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT ----------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY P.P. SRI. JAI GEORGE. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 2457 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of July, 2008 ORDER The petitioners are the sureties for an accused who faced indictment in a prosecution under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused was found guilty, convicted and sentenced. The appeal preferred by the accused was dismissed. The accused did not appear before the learned Magistrate on the dates stipulated. Proceedings were taken against the accused and the sureties. An order under Sec.446 of the Cr.P.C. was passed obliging the petitioners to pay the entire bond amount of Rs.15,000/- each as penalty. 2. The petitioners have preferred an appeal under Sec.449 of the Cr.P.C. They prayed that the direction for payment of penalty may not be executed during the pendency of the appeal. The learned Sessions Judge by the impugned Crl.M.C. No. 2457 of 2008 -: 2 :- order, copy produced as Annexure-IV, directed that the sentence shall stand suspended on condition that the appellants deposit an amount of Rs.7,500/- each. The petitioners claim to be aggrieved by the said order. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the accused in the case has already preferred a revision and in the said revision the offence has been compounded. Even prior to the date of the impugned order the offence stood compounded and there was no necessity thereafter to produce the accused before court. 3. The short contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that leniency must have been shown by the learned Sessions Judge while considering the plea for suspension of the order passed under sEc.446 of the Cr.P.C. The circumstance that the offence has already been compounded was omitted to be noted by the learned Sessions Judge, it is urged. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am satisfied that the impugned order can be modified. 5. In the result: (a) This Crl.M.C. is allowed in part. (b) The amount directed to be deposited is reduced from Crl.M.C. No. 2457 of 2008 -: 3 :- Rs.7,500/- to Rs.1,500/- each. Such payment shall be made within a period of one month from this date. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge