IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 28TH MAGHA 1931 CRL.A.No. 1718 of 2008() ------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12/02/2008 IN MC 4/08 IN SC.105/1997 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (FAST TRACK-I), TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT(S)/COUNTER PETITIONERS 2 AND 3 : ----------------------------------------------------- 1. SURENDRAN, S/O RAMAN, CHANDANAVILA PUTHENVEEDU, VARIYAMKONAM, KALAMACHAL P.O., VAMANAPURAM VILLAGE. 2. SHANAVAS, S/O FAZILUDEEN, CHANDANAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, MISSION COLONY, MANAMBOOR VILLAGE, PERUMKULAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.J.JAYAKUMAR RESPONDENT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.8335/08 IN CRL.A.1718/08 //DISMISSED// 17.2.2010 SD/- R.BASANT, JUDGE SD/-M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE . TRUE COPY R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- CRL.APPEAL No.1718 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2010 J U D G M E N T Basant, J. This appeal is preferred under Section 449 of Cr.P.C. against the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under Section 446 Cr.P.C. imposing a penalty of Rs.25,000/- on the appellants. 2. The appellants were admittedly sureties to the 8th accused in S.C.No.105/97. He faced indictment in a prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The said accused was released on bail on the strength of a bond for Rs.25,000/- executed by him with the appellants as sureties. The 8th accused was not available for trial. It is in these circumstances that the court below initiated proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C. against the appellants, obliging them to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- each as penalty. 3. The appellants claim to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the grievance? The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the whereabouts of the 8th accused is not known and he is making himself scarce. It is precisely to avoid Crl.A.No.1718/08 -2- that situation that the court had insisted on bail. The interests of public justice demand that the bounden and the sureties must scrupulously abide by the terms of the bond executed by them in favour of court. It is prayed that leniency may be shown and the penalty may be reduced. The entire bond amount has been ordered to be paid as penalty, it is lamented. We find no merit in the said grievance. It is true that in cases where at least by the time the appeals under Section 449 Cr.P.C. are disposed of, the accused is made available for trial before the court concerned, this Court takes a lenient view. But, in this case, admittedly, the 8th accused has not been produced before the court so far. He is taking the courts and the system for a ride obviously. We are in these circumstances not persuaded to agree that the appellants are entitled for any leniency. Misplaced leniency is likely to send a wrong message which would contribute further to the scandalous delay in the judicial process. 4. This appeal is in these circumstances dismissed. R.BASANT, JUDGE. dsn M.C.HARI RANI,JUDGE.