IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 5TH JUNE 2009 / 15TH JYAISHTA 1931 CRL.A.No. 1023 of 2009(T) ------------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09/04/2008 IN MC. NO. 2/2008 IN SC.800/2004 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT-II, MAVELIKKARA .................... APPELLANT/COUNTER PETITIONERS. ---------------------------------------------------- 1. RAJESH, THONDUKUNNEL, PATHIYOOR VILLAGE. 2. VIJAYAMMA, PUTHENKANDATHIL, PATHIYOOR VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK. 3. P.OMANA, THONDUKUNNEL, PATHIYOOR VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK. BY ADV. MR.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) RESPONDENT/STATE AND COMPALINANT. ------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.C.M. NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ M.N. KRISHNAN, J. --------------------------- CRL.A.NO.1023 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 5th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT This is an appeal preferred against the order in M.C.No.2/2008 in S.C.No.800/2004 of the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Mavelikkara. The 5th accused did not appear before the court on a day when 28 witnesses were summoned and he is also involved in a case of murder under Section 302 of the IPC. The court rightly cancelled his bail and issued a warrant of arrest. Thereafter, M.C was initiated and opportunity was given to the sureties to produce the accused. They did not produce the accused. They had executed the bond for Rs.20,000/= and the bond was forfeited. There was a contention before the court below that the 5th accused was working in Alakendra in Coimbatore. He did not get leave for being present in court. Everybody knows the fact that sessions court is normally posting the cases at least one month in advance and therefore, there cannot be a doubt that trial will commence on that day. On account of the conduct of the 2 CRL.A.NO.1023/09 5th accused, the trial got aborted. Subsequently he has approached this Court and later was released on bail. 2. We are not concerned with the final result after trial in that stage. I do not find any valid reasons regarding the conduct of the 5th accused for his non appearance before the court on the day when he promised to come. I feel that trial court was very lenient in imposing a penalty of Rs.7,000/=. As far as appellants 2 and 3 are concerned, as sureties there is a duty cast upon them to produce the accused. If one is convinced that they have no motive to evade the presence of the accused before the court, then certainly the court is entitled to show some leniency. I feel some leniency can be shown and the penalty amount of Rs.7,000/= can be reduced to Rs.5,000/=. 3. In the result: 1. The criminal appeal is disposed of. 2. The appeal filed by the accused namely A5 is rejected (i.e. 1st appellant). The imposition of penalty on appellants 2 and 3 are concerned, they are directed to pay a penalty of 3 CRL.A.NO.1023/09 Rs.5,000/= each and if the said amount is not paid on or before 16.8.2009, the court below shall take steps to execute the order. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl 4 CRL.A.NO.1023/09