IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2010 / 8TH ASHADHA 1932 CRL.A.No. 1181 of 2010() ------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01/07/2009 IN MC 102/2008 IN SC.660/2007 of I ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANTS ------------------------ 1. SHAN, S/O.SUBAIR AGED 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT ERATHUVILA VEEDU VETTOOR DESOM, VARKALA. 2. AISHA BEEVI, W/O.SUBAIR, AGED 65 YEARS RESIDING AT ERATHUVILA VEEDU VETTOOR DESOM, VARKALA. BY ADVS. SRI.AYYAPPAN SANKAR SRI.G.SURARSHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA BY ADV.SRI.M.R.VENUGOPAL, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ami/ V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------- Crl.A.No.1181 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of June, 2010. O R D E R This appeal is preferred by the sureties in the Sessions Case No.660/07 of the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Trivandrum, challenging the order dated 1.7.2009 in M.C.102/08, which is an order passed u/s.446 of Cr.P.C. imposing a penalty of Rs.25,000/- on each of the appellant. 2. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that, the accused was not available on the previous occasions especially when the proceedings was initiated and the appellants herein produced the accused before the court below and subsequently released on bail. Therefore the learned counsel submitted that a lenient view may be taken in the matter of penalty amount. 3. Being the sureties, the appellants are contractually obliged to produce the accused as and when required by the court below but in the present case they have miserably failed to discharge their duty. Therefore, I find no illegality with the order Crl.A.No.1181 of 2010 2 impugned. However considering the subsequent development that, the accused had in a later stage, appeared before the court and he is released on bail, I am of the view that the penalty amount can be modified and reduced to Rs.5,000/- which will be sufficient to meet the end of justice. In the result, this appeal is disposed of upholding the correctness of the order impugned but modifying the penalty amount and reducing the same to Rs.5,000/-. Accordingly each of the appellants/sureties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- being the penalty amount. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in terms of the order dated 1.3.2010 of this court in Crl.M.A.2146/10, each of the appellants have deposited a sum of Rs.5,000/-, as evidenced by receipt Nos.35 and 36, dated 11.3.2010, issued from the court below and the said amount can be adjusted towards the penalty amount now fixed by this court. I find no reason to reject the above request. Accordingly the trial court is directed to adjust the sum of Rs.5,000/- deposited by each of the appellants as Crl.A.No.1181 of 2010 3 per the order dated 1.3.2010 in Crl.M.A.2146/10, against the penalty amount modified and refixed by this court. The coercive steps if any taken against the appellants shall stand cancelled. Criminal appeal is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. ami/