IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2008 / 28TH JYAISHTA 1930 CRL.A.No. 1197 of 2008() ---------------------------------- M.C.NO.37/2007 IN SC. NO.1593/2006 OF ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, (ADHOC-I), KOLLAM. APPELLANTS/ COUNTER PETITIONERS 2 &3 ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ANANDHAN, S/O. PAPPU, AGED 75 YEARS, THENGUVILA HARIJAN COLONY, MEENADU VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 2. SURENDRAN, S/O.SIVADASAN, AGED 40 YEARS, SIVADASAVILASOM VEEDU, CHIRAKKARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.DILEEP P.PILLAI RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.A.No. 1197 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT The appellants are the sureties of an accused who faced indictment in a prosecution under Sec.302 of the IPC. The said accused was enlarged on bail accepting the bond for Rs.25,000/- executed by him with the appellants as sureties. That person/accused facing such a serious allegation is not now available before the Sessions Court. After the committal, he has made himself scarce and is not appearing before the Sessions Court for continuation of the proceedings. The learned Sessions Judge, in these circumstances, initiated proceedings against the sureties under Sec.446 of the Cr.P.C. The sureties appeared before the learned Sessions Judge; but were not able to produce the accused. The learned Sessions Judge, by the impugned order, imposed a penalty of Crl.A.No. 1197 of 2008 -: 2 :- Rs.10,000/- each on the appellants. The bond was for an amount of Rs.25,000/-; but the penalty imposed was only Rs.10,000/- each. The appellants claim to be aggrieved by the impugned order. 2. What is the grievance? The learned counsel for the appellants only prays that leniency may be shown to the appellants. How are the appellants entitled for leniency? The only submission is that the appellants are poor coolie workers and the accused happened to be a relative of theirs. 3. No other contentions are raised. There is not even a submission that if some time were granted, the appellants shall be able to produce the accused. 4. The only question to be considered is hence whether the quantum of penalty imposed calls for interference. The interests of public justice demands that the bounden and the sureties must scrupulously abide by the obligations in the bond executed by them in favour of the accused. 5. Misplaced sympathy and leniency is likely to further aggravate the scandalous delay in the judicial process. No negative message can be sent by unnecessarily interfering with the quantum of penalty imposed. Leniency to a fault has already Crl.A.No. 1197 of 2008 -: 3 :- been shown by the learned Sessions Judge. I find absolutely no further space for showing any further leniency to be shown in favour of the appellants. 6. This Crl. Appeal is, in these circumstances, dismissed in limine. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge