IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2008 / 9TH ASHADHA 1930 CRL.A.No. 1297 of 2008() ------------------------ CRL.M.C,NO.168/08 IN S.C.NO.153/06 OF THE ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, ADHOC-II, THRISSUR. .................... APPELLANTS: ----------- 1. JOSE, S/O. PAILY, ELUVANTHINGAL HOUSE, MANAVALASSERY VILLAGE, KATTUNGACHIRA. 2. SURESH, S/O. EKKORAN, PARAMBARATHI HOUSE, PORATHISSERY VILLAGE, MOORKKANAD DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.V.BINOY RAM RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY P.P. SRI. JAI GEORGE. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.A.No. 1297 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT The appellants were the sureties for an accused (A3) in a prosecution under Sec.395 of the IPC. The appellants executed bonds for Rs.15,000/- each undertaking to produce the accused. The said accused did not appear. Notice was issued to the appellants. They received the notice. They did not produce the accused; nor did they appear before the learned Sessions Judge and show cause. In these circumstances, notwithstanding the fact that the bond is for an amount of Rs.15,000/-, the learned learned Sessions Judge appears to have shown leniency and directed payment of penalty of Rs.10,000/- each only. That order passed under Sec.446 of the Cr.P.C. is challenged in this appeal filed under Sec.449 of the Cr.P.C. Crl.A No. 1297 of 2008 -: 2 :- 2. Has the accused entered appearance at least now? What ground is there to show leniency to the appellants? The appeal is founded on the plank that leniency must have been shown to the appellants. 3. The accused faced indictment for a fairly serious offence – one punishable under Sec.395 of the IPC. I must assume that the appellants must have offered themselves as sureties with open eyes considering the nature and gravity of the allegations as also the possible difficulties in procuring the presence of such accused. They have not produced the accused. Even now he is absconding. When the appellants received notice, they did not think it necessary to appear before the learned Sessions Judge and plead for leniency if they had any case or reason. Even before me, the only claim is that leniency may be shown. 4. I do not find any reason to show any further leniency to the appellants. The learned Sessions Judge had shown leniency to a fault notwithstanding the fact that the appellants have not procured the presence of the accused even now before the learned Sessions Judge. I find no reason to interfere with the Crl.A No. 1297 of 2008 -: 3 :- impugned order. 5. This appeal under Sec.449 of the Cr.P.C. is, in these circumstances, dismissed in limine. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge