IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2008 / 3RD ASHADHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2051 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.149/1999 of SESSIONS COURT, THODUPUZHA MC.26/1999 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, ADIMALI .................... REVN. PETITIONER: REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS ------------------------------------------------- 1. MADHAVAN, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAN, MANKANAL KUNNEL HOUSE, MANNADIPARA KARA, KONNATHODI VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. CHANDRAN, S/O.THEVAN, CHIRAKKAL HOUSE, KANNADIPARA KARA, KONNATHODI VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB ABRAHAM SMT.KOCHUMOL KODUVATH RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT ----------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P. RAVEENDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Crl.R.P. NO. 2051 of 2008 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 24-06-2008 ORDER The first revision petitioner is the complainant in a police charge case registered as C.C. 60 of 1999 on the file of J.F.C.M. Adimaly. The 2nd revision petitioner is one of the sureties to a bond executed by the first revision petitioner in favour of the Magistrate. The petitioners challenge the order dated 8-12-1999 passed by the Magistrate imposing the bond amount to Rs. 15,000/- as penalty for the non production of certain properties. The said order was confirmed by the Sessions Court, Thodupuzha in Crl.Appeal No. 151 of 1999. 2. The facts leading to the passing of the impugned order can be summarised as follows:- C.C. 60 of 1999 was a case charge-sheeted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Vellathooval, against 7 accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 149, 341, 323, 447 and 427 read with Sec. 149 I.P.C. alleging the forcible removal of a T.V. set and its accessories from the house of the first revision petitioner namely, Mangattu Madhavan, after causing hurt to one Ponnamma and Nirmmala who were present in the house. During the course of investigation the police seized the T.V. and its accessories and produced the same before the Magistrate. During the crime stage itself accused Nos. 1 and 3 filed C.M.P. No. 8834 of 1998 before the Magistrate seeking interim custody of the T.V. and its accessories. Crl.R.P. No. 2051 of 2008 -:2:- The first revision petitioner namely, Madhavan also filed C.M.P. 8907 of 1998 for interim custody of the properties. As per common order dated the Magistrate dismissed the application filed by accused Nos. 1 and 3 and allowed the application filed by the first revision petitioner by granting interim custody of the T.V. and its accessories to the first revision petitioner on his executing a bond for Rs. 15,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the said amount. Pursuant to the said order on 15-10-1998 T.V. and its accessories were released to the first revision petitioner on his executing bond as ordered. Accused Nos. 1 and 3 assailed the common order passed by the Magistrate by filing Crl.M.C. 5592 of 1998 before this Court. As per order dated 25-09-1999 this Court set aside the common order passed by the Magistrate and directed the Magistrate to give interim custody of the T.V. and its accessories to A1 and A3. Thereupon the Magistrate issued notice to the first revision petitioner for producing the T.V. and its accessories for the purpose of giving interim custody of the same to A1 and A3. The first revision petitioner failed to produce the same. Then the learned Magistrate registered M.C. 26 of 1999 against the first revision petitioner and the sureties and called upon them to show cause why the bond amount should not be forfeited. The first revision petitioner appeared before the Magistrate and submitted that the T.V. and its accessories were taken by the Project Officer, ANERT. As per order dated 8-12-1999, the bond amount was forfeited and revision petitioners and the other surety were each ordered to pay penalty of Rs. 15,000/- It was also ordered that if the penalty was found to be irrecoverable each of the counter petitioners shall undergo imprisonment in civil prison for six Crl.R.P. No. 2051 of 2008 -:3:- months. The said order was confirmed in appeal by the Sessions Court, Thodupuzha in Crl. Appeal No. 149 of 1999. Hence this Revision. 3. On the submission made on behalf of the revision petitioners to the effect that the T.V. and its accessories which were taken away by the Project Officer, ANERT from the first revision petitioner had since been produced before the Magistrate by the Project Officer, ANERT, this Court called for a report from the Magistrate. As per letter dated 17-6-2008 the learned Magistrate has submitted on 15-2-2000 the Project Officer, ANERT had produced the T.V. and its accessories before the Magistrate. In the light of this subsequent development it will be harsh to confirm the order imposing the penalty on the revision petitioners. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the trial court as well as the judgment passed by the lower appellate court are set aside and the proceedings in M.C. 26 of 1999 shall stand dropped. This Revision is allowed as above. Dated this the 24th day of June 2008. V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE) ani. Crl.R.P. No. 2051 of 2008 -:4:-