IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 20TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 29TH KARTHIKA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3616 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.625/2006 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-2), THRISSUR MC.118/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, CHAVAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONERS: APPELLANT/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------- 1. PARVATHY, AGED 85 YEARS, D/O.MANCHARAMBATH KUTTI PARU (LATE), NAMBIKKADAVU DESOM, THALIKKULAM VILLAGE, CHAVAKKADU TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. AYYUNNI, S/O.LATE KURUMBA, KUTTAMPARAMBATHU, THALIKKULAM VILLAGE, CHAVAKKADU TALUK, THRISSUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.M.B.PRAJITH RESPONDENT: RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------- STATE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.3616 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of November, 2009 ORDER Revision petitioners were the sureties of the accused in C.C.No.985 of 1998 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Chavakkad. They got released the accused on bail after executing a bond for Rs.10,000/- with an undertaking to produce the accused therein as and when called upon. But they failed to produce the accused on the posting date. Consequently, the learned magistrate forfeited the bond and issued notice calling upon the revision petitioners to show cause for not imposing penalty. The revision petitioners failed to show any cause. Consequently, they were sentenced to pay a penalty of Rs.10,000/- each. 2. Aggrieved by the order imposing penalty revision petitioners preferred Criminal Appeal No.625 of 2006. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Adhoc-II), Thrissur by judgment dated 7/11/2008 dismissed the appeal. 3. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above order imposing penalty as confirmed in appeal, this revision petition was filed. Crl.R.P.No.3616 of 2009 2 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and perusing the order impugned, I find that the revision petitioner, in fact failed to produce the accused and the trial court was justified in forfeiting the bail bond. Having taken note that the accused whom the revision petitioner got released on bail was later apprehended and he had remitted the compensation amount as per the order of the court and that the first revision petitioner is a lady aged 85 years and that the second petitioner is the son of the other sureties who is now no more, I find that the revision petitioners are entitled to a little leniency and that a penalty of Rs.2,500/- each would meet the ends of justice. In the result, this revision petition is allowed in part. While confirming the order imposing penalty, the quantum is reduced to Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand five hundred only) each. In default to pay the penalty, the revision petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE skj.