IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 22ND MAGHA 1930 CRL.A.No. 322 of 2009() ----------------------- SC. 1038 OF 2006 AND MC.108/2008 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (FAST TRACK -III) TRIVANDRUM. CP.67/2005 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, NEDUMANGAD .................... APPELLANTS: -------------- SAIRANDRI, D/O.KALYANI 65 YEARS, HOUSE NO.1/771, BLOCK NO.147, PUNNAMANVAYAL ANADU MURI, MADATHARA, PENGAMALA PO., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MRI.LIJU. M.P RESPONDENT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. K.L. LAKSHMI RAI THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.K. MOHANAN, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Crl. Appeal No. 322 OF 2009 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 11th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT This is an appeal under Section 449 of Cr.P.C. at the instance of the second surety for the first accused in S.C. 1038 of 2006 of the Additional Sessions (Fast Track III) Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The above sessions case was instituted upon the final report submitted by the DySP, CBCID, SIG No.1, Thiruvananthapuram for the offences punishable under Sections 120 (B) and 489 B & C read with Section 34 of IPC against five accused. Upon the suretyship of the appellant as well as the first surety, the first accused was released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.25,000/-. The first accused while on bail gone to gulf and he is now absconding. Though the court issued NBW against the 3rd counter petitioner, who is the first accused, the same was returned reporting that he has gone to gulf. Hence M.C. 108 of 2008 was registered and notices were issued to the counter petitioners including the appellant. Though the first surety appeared and sought time for producing the accused he did not produce the accused. On the next posting date he was absent. The appellant herein appeared before the court and she expressed Crl. Appeal No. 322 of 2009 : 2 : her inability to produce the accused. Under the above circumstances, the court below directed that each of the sureties shall pay penalty of Rs.15,000/-. It is the above order challenged in this appeal. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor . The learned counsel submitted that the appellant is a widow and she was depending her elder son for her lively hood and the said son had already expired and therefore she is not in a position to raise that much amount. Thus, the counsel submitted that a lenient view may be taken. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor stoutly opposed the petition and submitted that going by the facts and circumstances involved in this case it cannot be said that impugned order is either illegal or incorrect. Being a surety and being mother of the first accused, the appellant is bound to abide the conditions of the bond and to procure the presence of the absconding accused. But the learned counsel submitted that the absconding accused is still at gulf and appellant has no contact with him. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the appellant is now at the age of 68 years and she is a widow. Considering the Crl. Appeal No. 322 of 2009 : 3 : circumstances stated above, I am of the view that the amount fixed by the court below as penalty can be reduced and refixed as Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only). Thus, the appellant is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as penalty within a period of one month from today. If the amount is not paid within the time stipulated the court below can take coercive steps for realisation of the penalty amount now refixed by this Court. Coercive steps, if any, already taken, shall be deferred for a period of one month from today. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. V.K. MOHANAN, JUDGE kmd