IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2008 / 21ST POUSHA 1929 CRL.A.No. 10 of 2008() ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31/07/2007 IN MC.3/2007 IN SC.576/2006 of ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS (ADHOC-III), N.PARAVUR .................... APPELLANT: SURETIES ----------------------------------- 1. JOSHY, S/O.GEORGE, THOUNDASSERIL VEEDU, THURUTHIPURAM, PUTHENVELIKKARA VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK. 2. FRANCIS, S/O.GEORGE, THOUNDASSERIL, THURUTHIPURAM, PUTHENVELIKKARA VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENTS: STATE ------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.T.MOHANAN THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------- Crl.A.No.10 of 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT Public prosecutor appears for the respondent state. Service complete. Heard. This appeal is under Section 449 of the Code of Crl.P.C. The appellants were sureties to the accused in S.C.No.576 of 2006 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court (Adhoc III)-North Parur. The bond was executed before the committal court and after committal of the case to the Sessions Court despite issuance of summons, the accused did not appear and applications were being made by the counsel for excusing his absence on 17.1.2007, 31.1.2007 and 13.2.2007. On 21.2.2007, when this case stood posted there was no representation even, on behalf of the accused. Despite coercive steps taken, presence of the accused could not be secured. The Sessions Court consequently was satisfied that the bond stood forfeited. 2. Notice was issued interalia to the appellants to show cause as to why the bond amount should not be realised from Crl.A.No.10/08 2 them as penalty. Despite service of notice and posting of the case on 23.6.2007, 10.7.2007, 26.7.2007, 30.7.2007 and on 31.7.2007 petitioners did not show any cause as to why the bond amount should not be imposed as penalty against them. It was therefore that the impugned order was passed imposing the bond amount of Rs.20,000/- each as penalty on the appellants. 3. Though contentions are raised against the procedure adopted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, counsel for the appellants submits that the grievance of the appellants is only that the entire bond amount of Rs.20,000/- each, which the appellants could not raise, was imposed as penalty without granting remission of even a portion of the bond amount and that is highly excessive. Considering the entire circumstances of the case, I am also of the view that the entire amount of Rs.20,000/- each should not have been imposed as penalty on the appellants who were sureties to the accused. In the result, allowing this Crl.Appeal in part, I reduce the amount of penalty to Rs.7,500/- each giving remission for the balance amount of the bond. The appellants shall deposit the Crl.A.No.10/08 3 amount so reduced at the rate of Rs.7,500/- each positively within one month from today in the court below, failing which, the court below shall take steps to realise the amount of penalty from the appellants. K.P.BALACHANDRAN, Judge csl