IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 14TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 25TH MAGHA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 556 of 2008() ------------------------ C.C.NO.313/1999 BEFORE THE J.F.C.M- I , ALAPPUZHA PETITIONER: APPELLANTS ------------------------------------------- 1. BENNY JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH, NEDUMPATHALIL VEEDU, WARD NO.XIII, NEDUMKANDAM PANCHAYATH, IDUKKI. 2. V.J.KUTTAPPAN, S/O.V.J.JOHN, WARD NO.X, PAMPADUMPARA PANCHAYATH, IDUKKI. BY ADV. SRI.E.RAFEEK RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.M.C.No.556 of 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 14th day of February, 2008 ORDER The petitioners, who are the sureties to the accused namely Antony Joseph in C.C.No.313/1999 on the file of J.F.C.M- I, Alappuzha in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 had each executed a bond for Rs.10,000/-. Consequent on the non appearance of the aforesaid accused, the J.F.C.M- I, Alappuzha initiated proceedings against the petitioners under Section 446 Cr.P.C. To the show cause notice issued to them, they did not enter appearance or show cause against the proposed default of forfeiting the bond amount of Rs.10,000/-. The learned Magistrate, thereupon, as per order dated 20.9.02, imposed the bond amount of Rs.10,000/- as penalty on each of the petitioners. Even though they preferred an appeal against the trial court's order, since the appeal was hopelessly barred by limitation, the petition to condone the delay was dismissed and consequently the appeal was also dismissed, as time barred by the Sessions Judge, Alappuzha in Crl.Appeal No.291/2007. Hence this Crl.M.C. Crl.M.C.No.556 of 2008 2 2. Even though this Crl.M.C is technically not maintainable for the reason that the impugned order is not an interlocutory order, but a final order, and the remedy of the petitioners is to file a revision, I am not standing on the said technicality . 3. Antony Joseph, the accused in C.C.No.313/1999 subsequently appeared before the learned Magistrate and was, as per order dated 29.6.07, acquitted under Section 257 Cr.P.C. No proceedings were initiated against him under Section 446 Cr.P.C, for his nonappearance. Considering all these circumstances and the further circumstance that the petitioners are also impecunious, I am inclined to reduce the penalty to Rs.4,000/-. Accordingly, each of the petitioners shall deposit the reduced amount of Rs.4,000/-(Rupees four thousand only) before the trial court within a period of 45 days from today, failing which appropriate steps shall be initiated against them for realisation of the same. If the penalty is finally found to be irrecoverable, the petitioners shall undergo imprisonment in civil court for a period of three months. This Crl.M.C is disposed of as above. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj /True Copy/ P.A To Judge