IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2009 / 7TH MAGHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 168 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRA.396/2004 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-I) MANJERI M.C.34/04 JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, NILAMBUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS ------------------------------- 1. RAGHAVAN PILLAI, S/O.GOPALAN PILLAI, KRISHNA SADAN, PALANKARA, EDAKKARA AMSOM, NILAMBUR TALUK. 2. V.P. BABU, S/O. POULOSE, VETTIYATTIL HOUSE, ERUMAMUNDA, CHUNGATHARA AMSOM, NILAMBUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A RESPONDENT(S): STATE -------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR C.M.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== Crl.R.P. NO. 168 OF 2009 =========================== Dated this the 27th day of January,2009 ORDER Revision petitioners are the sureties to accused 15 and 24 in C.C.316/2003 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nilambur. When the said accused failed to appear, revision petitioners were directed to produce the accused. Revision petitioners did not produce the accused. As the accused were absconding, learned Magistrate forfeited the bond and issued notice to revision petitioners to show cause why penalty as provided in the bond shall not be realised. Petitioners though originally appeared failed to appear later and did not show any ause why the penalty shall not be realised. Learned Magistrate thereafter imposed a penalty of Rs.20,000/- each. It was challenged before Additional Sessions Judge, CRRP 168/2009 2 Manjeri in Crl.A.396/2004. Learned Additional Sessions Judge on going through the records found that there was no procedural irregularity. The learned Sessions Judge found that when revision petitioners did not show any cause, there is no reason to interfere with the quantum of the penalty and dismissed the appeal. It is challenged in the revision. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners were heard. 3. Learned counsel submitted that the accused subsequently appeared and they are being tried by the learned Magistrate. Learned counsel submitted that courts below should have shown leniency and should not have imposed the penalty and the penalty may be reduced. 4. Revision petitioners voluntarily agreed to be the sureties and executed the bonds for accused 15 and 24. In the bond they agreed to pay Rs.10,000/- each. On their failure to comply with CRRP 168/2009 3 the conditions of the bond and had undertaken production of the accused as and when directed. Revision petitioners have no case that they produced the accused when called for. In such circumstance, learned Magistrate was justified in awarding the penalty as no cause was shown. Then the only question is regarding the quantum. Considering the fact that the accused subsequently appeared, in the interest of justice, penalty is reduced to Rs.10,000/- each from Rs.20,000/- awarded by the learned Magistrate. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006