IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2009 / 1ST ASWINA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2658 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.258/2008 of SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM MC.92/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II(MOBILE), KOTTAYAM (ST.2054/08) .................... REVN. PETITIONERS: APPELLANT/COUNTER PETITIONER: -------------------------------------------------- 1. NAVAS, S/O.MOHAMMED CHALAPPALLIL HOUSE, EZHUPUNNATHEKKE MURI, KODAMTHURUTHU, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA. 2. RAJAMMA SADANANDAN, W/O.SADANANDAN, VELUTHDATHU HOUSE, EZHUPUNNA THEKKE MURI, KODAMTHURUTHU, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE ZACHARIAH ERUTHICKAL RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT: --------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2658 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2009 ORDER The revision petitioners are the respondents in M.C.No.92/07 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II (Mobile), Kottayam. They were sureties of the accused in S.T.No.366 of 2007. They executed a bail bond for an amount of Rs.20,000/- and got released the accused who was facing trial for offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act with undertaking to produce the accused as and when called upon. But they failed to produce the accused before the court. Consequently the learned magistrate forfeited the bail bond and show cause notice was issued to the revision petitioner calling upon them to show cause for not imposing penalty. But they didn't show any cause. Hence the learned Magistrate imposed a penalty of Rs.20,000/- each. In appeal the learned sessions judge, Kottayam remitted half of the bond amount and the revision petitioners were directed to pay Rs.10,000/- each as penalty. Aggrieved by the above order imposing penalty, this revision petition was filed. 2. According to the learned counsel for the revision Crl.R.P.No.2658 of 2009 2 petitioner, the accused whom the revision petitioner got released on bail later appeared before the trial court and after due trial he was found not guilty and acquitted u/s.255(1) Code of Criminal Procedure and that now the revision petitioners were sentenced to penalty of Rs.10,000/- each and it is highly excessive. 3. Having taken into account that as evidenced by the judgment in S.T.No.2054/08 dated 28/4/2009 the accused was found not guilty and acquitted, I find that the revision petitioners are entitled to a little more leniency and a penalty of Rs.5,000/- each would suffice. 4. In the result, the revision petition is allowed in part. While confirming the order imposing penalty, the quantum is reduced to Rs.5,000/- each. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE skj.