IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2010 / 27TH JYAISTHA 1932 CRL.A.No. 1101 of 2010() ------------------------ MC.19/09 in 679/2008 of ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS COURT FAST TRACK (ADHOC-I), KOZHIKODE .............................................................. APPELLANT(S): APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MAMMU, S/O.AYAMMED, KUNDATHIL HOUSE, RAROTH AMSOM, VELIMANNA DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 2. BHASKARAN, S/O.PARAMESWARAN, CHENNIMMAL HOUSE, RAROTH AMSOM, VELIMANNA DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER --------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV.SRI.M.R.VENUGOPAL, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ami/ V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------- Crl. APPEAL No.1101 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of June, 2010. J U D G M E N T As the 1st accused in S.C.679/08 absconded, while he was on bail upon the surety-ship of the appellants, the court of Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track (Adhoc-1), Kozhikode, registered Crl.M.C.19/09, u/s.446 of Cr.P.C. Consequently, the learned Sessions Judge issued the impugned order by which, each of the appellants is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as penalty. It is the above order challenged in this appeal. 2. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that, the accused is absconding and the endeavour made by the appellants to produce the accused before the court resulted in vain and thus the appellants are unable to procure the presence of the accused. Hence it is submitted that a lenient view may be taken in the matter of penalty amount. 3. When the appellants stood as sureties for the accused and while executing the Bond, they themselves undertook the Crl. APPEAL No.1101 of 2010 2 liability to produce the accused as and when required and on their failure, they have to face the consequence that arose out of the contractual obligation. In the present case, from the order itself it is seen that the accused has not appeared inspite of coercive steps taken and the appellants also failed to produce him and no sufficient reason was shown for not producing the accused. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the correctness of the decision of the learned Sessions Judge. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, I am of the view that while confirming the order of penalty, the penalty amount can be modified by reducing the same from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.2,500/-. In the result, this appeal is disposed of confirming the order imposing the penalty against the appellants but the penalty amount is modified and reduced to the tune of Rs.2,500/- against Rs.10,000/- ordered by the trial court against each of the appellants. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that while condoning the delay, this court has directed each of Crl. APPEAL No.1101 of 2010 3 the appellants to deposit a sum of Rs.2,500/- and the said amount has already been deposited in the court below and the receipt showing the remittance was already produced before this court and it is further submitted that the said amount can be adjusted towards the penalty amount. I find no reason to reject the above submission. Thus the trial court is directed to adjust a sum of Rs.2,500/- deposited by each of the appellants in that court, on the basis of the order dated 28.5.2010 in Crl.M.A.No.4980/10, towards the penalty amount as revised and refixed by this court in this order. Coercive steps if any already taken against the appellants shall stand cancelled. Criminal appeal is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. ami/