IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2010 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1931 CRL.A.No. 500 of 2010() --------------------------------- MC.1/2009 DATED 8.7.2009 IN S.C.No.430/2006 OF THE ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-III), FAST TRACK COURT-III, PALAKKAD ................................................................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANTS/COUNTER PETITIONERS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CHANDRAN, S/O. KANNAN, KODUVALLY VEEDU, KOTTOPPADAM, MANNARKKAD TALUK. 2. MAMMOOTTY @ MUHAMMEDKUTTY, S/O. MOIDUPPA, PUTHUPARAMBIL VEEDU, KOTTOPPADAM, MANNARKAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH NAMBIAR RESPONDENT(S): STATE ------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY ADV.SRI.C.M.KAMMAPPU, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------- Crl. APPEAL No.500 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of March, 2010. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal under Section 449 of Criminal Procedure Code at the instance of the sureties in Sessions Case No.430/2006 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, (Ad hoc-III) Fast Track Court-III, Palakkad, in which the appellants stood as sureties for the accused against whom the offence alleged is u/s.376 of IPC. 2. Upon the surety-ship of the appellants the accused was released on bail on their executing a Bond for Rs.25,000/- each. As the accused failed to appear before the Court, notices were issued to them and they appeared before the Court through counsel engaged by them and applications were filed before the Court below seeking time to produce the accused. Though time was granted, thereafter the appellants neither appeared before the Court either in person or through the counsel, nor produced the accused as undertaken by them. It is in the above circumstances, the court below passed an order imposing a Crl. APPEAL No.500 of 2010 2 penalty of Rs.25,000/- on each of the appellants. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, the appellants tried their level best to find out the accused and to produce him before the Court below but their attempt was in vain as the accused had gone abroad. The said reason does not appear to be a ground to set aside the order issued against the appellant. It is the duty and contractual obligation of the appellants to produce the accused as and when required by the Court below. The impugned order was passed by the Court below after complying with the procedural requirement. So I find no illegality with the order impugned. 4. However, from the facts and circumstances involved in the case, it appears that the appellants are the neighbours of the absconding accused and under that situation, they stood as sureties and tried their level best to procure the presence of the accused and hence I am of the view that the amount fixed by the Court as penalty, can be modified and re-fixed to a sum of Rs.7,500/-, which will be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. Crl. APPEAL No.500 of 2010 3 The learned counsel brought to my notice that, as ordered by this Court on 15.2.2010 in Crl.M.A.No.1379/2010, each of the appellants had already deposited a sum of Rs.7,500/- as a condition to condone the delay and the said amount can be adjusted towards the penalty amount. In the result, this criminal appeal is disposed of confirming the order of the Trial Court, but modifying the amount of penalty, which is reduced and stands re-fixed as Rs.7,500/- on each of the appellants. There will be direction to the court below to adjust the amount of Rs.7,500/- which is already deposited by each of the appellants in terms of order in Crl.M.A. No.1379/2010 dated 15.2.2010, towards the penalty amount as re-fixed by this court as indicated above. The coercive steps, if any taken, against the appellants stand cancelled. The Criminal appeal is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. ami/