IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2009 / 16TH ASHADHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1634 of 2007 ------------------------------ CRA.407/2004 of II ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM MC.99/2003 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOLLAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/COUNTER PETITIONER NO.2: ------------------------------ PRAKASHAN,S/O.VIDHYADHARAN, KINATTAZHIKATHU VEEDU,THEKKEVILA CHERRI,ERAVIPURAM MUNDAKKAL VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.A.NOOR MUHAMMED SRI.C.K.PRASAD RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ---------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: SRI JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1634 of 2007 --------------------------------------- Dated this 07h day of July 2009 ORDER This revision is in challenge of judgment of learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Kollam in criminal appeal No.407 of 2004 refusing to exonerate petitioner from his liability to pay penalty but modifying the penalty payable. Petitioner along with another, got release of the accused on bail in C.C.No.553 of 2002 of the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kollam on executing bond for Rs.15000/- each. They did not produce the accused as directed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and forfeited bail bond. Proceeding against petitioner and another under section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure followed. Notice was served on petitioner and the other surety. Petitioner appeared in the trial court but did not offer any sufficient explanation why penalty should not be imposed. Petitioner was directed to pay penalty of Rs.7500/-. He preferred an appeal. Learned Additional Sessions Judge modified penalty payable by the petitioner as Rs.5000/-. Petitioner is aggrieved and has come up in revision. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner is not able to raise the sum of Rs.5000/-. It is not disputed that petitioner bailed out the accused and that the bail bond was forfeited. He has not offered any Crl.R.P.No.1634 of 2009 2 explanation why penalty should not be imposed. I do not find reason to interfere or show leniency in the matter. Hence the revision is dismissed. THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE Sbna/