IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN SATURDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2009 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1931 CRL.A.No. 297 of 2009() ----------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15/05/2006 IN MC 21/06 IN SC.1922/2001 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT-TRIAL OF ABKARI ACT CASES,NEYYATTINKARA .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. BABU S/O. GOPALAN, THADATHARIKATHU PUTHEN VEEDU, AYANACHUMKOINAM, KONNIYOOR, KONNIYOOR MURI, PERUMKULAM VILLAGE. 2. TYTUS, S/O. YACOB, PACHAKKADPUTHENVEEDU, KONNIYOOR, KAZHYKKAD MURI, PERUMKULAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. MR.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. C.M.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/05/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== CRL. A.No.297 OF 2009 ===================== Dated this the 23rd day of May 2009 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the order in M.C.No.21 of 2006 in S.C.No.1922 of 2001 of the Addl.Sessions Court for the trial of Abkari Act Cases, Neyyattinkara. The case is initiated against the respondents therein as if they had stood as sureties for the 3rd accused in the case. Proceedings were initiated under Section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and ultimately the bonds were forfeited and they were directed to pay Rs.25,000/- each as penalty. It is against that decision the criminal appeal has been preferred. 2. At the time of admission itself, it was brought to the notice of the court that these persons never stood as sureties to the 3rd accused and therefore the learned Judge called for a report from the concerned Sessions Judge. Now this Court had received a report on 21.5.2009 from the concerned Judge and it is seen that there are altogether 3 accused in the case and accused Nos.1 and 2 were released on bail on the strength of sureties and the 3rd accused offered the bail and sureties were one Santha Kumari CRL.A.No.297/2009 -:2:- and Thankamma. Unfortunately the learned Magistrate had taken the bond from the other persons which is against the procedure itself. Or, in other words, it was Santhakumari and Thankamma who had stood as sureties to the 3rd accused and not to the present appellants. So, if the court has committed a mistake, it is for that court to rectify the same. But the persons, who had not stood as sureties cannot be proceeded against and therefore the appeal deserves to be allowed and I do so. In the result, the order of the learned Sessions Judge in M.C.21/2006 is set aside and a direction is given not to proceed against the present appellants. If there are other methods known to law, the court is at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-