IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 31ST JANUARY 2008 / 11TH MAGHA 1929 CRL.A.No. 137 of 2008 ------------------------------------ SC.212/1999 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-I) KALPETTA .......... APPELLANTS/ACCUSED 2 AND 3: 1. SUDARSAN.K.P., KALOOPARAMBIL HOUSE, VARADOOR P.O., WYNAD. 2. P.K.MOHANAN, PARAMBIL HOUSE, CHOOTHUPARA P.O. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE: 1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. BALAN, S/O.KOCHUKUTTAN, MATHANKAL VEEDU, VADAKKANADU, KIDANGANADU. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.RAVINDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. Balachandran, J. --------------------------- Crl.A.No. 137 of 2008 --------------------------- JUDGMENT Received the lower court records. Perused the same. Heard the counsel for the appellants. 2. The lower court records were called for in this appeal filed under Section 449 of the Cr.P.C. for the reason that it was asserted by the counsel for the appellants that notices were not issued to the appellants and that he has no objection in dismissing the appeal in the event of the assertion being untrue. 3. It is seen from the records that notice to the first appellant was affixed at his house in the presence of his wife Remi and in relation to the second appellant, as the house had been locked, it was affixed on the door. The services so effected is certified by the Sub Inspector of Police, Meenangadi Police Station, Wayanad. It is further noticed that the addresses of the appellants shown in the appeal memorandum is the same as shown in CRA 137/08 2 the notices. Hence, the notices issued having been returned with the report of service by affixture, can, in the circumstances, be accepted as sufficient service. In the notices, the appellants were directed to appear and show cause against the imposition of penalty on 18.7.2007. Thereafter the case was adjourned to 8.8.2007, 10.9.2007 and 15.10.2007. On all these days, the appellants had not cared to appear and show cause as to why the amount shown in the notices should not be imposed as penalty as against them. It is also strange that despite the bond being for Rs.50,000/- each, notices had been issued to the appellants to show cause why an amount of Rs.10,000/- each shall not be forfeited. In fact, the notices should have been to show cause as to why the bond amount of Rs.50,000/- each should not be ordered to be paid as penalty. However, when the bond is for Rs.50,000/- each, and the penalty imposed being only Rs.10,000/- each, I see no impropriety in the CRA 137/08 3 court below having ordered the appellants to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- each by way of penalty, especially when they did not care to respond to the notices issued from court in a case, where the conviction of the accused had been confirmed by this Court and the sentence was to be enforced. This criminal appeal, in the circumstances, is devoid of any merit and deserves only to be dismissed. In the result, I dismiss this criminal appeal. 31st January, 2008 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv