IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2008 / 7TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2106 of 2008() CRA.546/2007 of SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA MC.229/2001 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT -I, ALAPPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: ------------------ ANILKUMAR.G., S/O.GANGADHARAN, SHAPPUVELIYIL WARD NO.3, MARARIKULAM VADAKKU PANCHAYAT, S.N.PURAM PO., ALAPPUZHA BY ADV. SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN SRI.SYAM J SAM RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M. NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Crl.R.P. No. 2106 of 2008 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 29-07-2008 ORDER Petitioner who was one of the sureties for accused Nos. 3,4,7,13,27, 28 and 29 in C.C. No. 701 of 1998 on the file of the J.F.C.M.I, Alappuzha, was proceeded against under Section 446 Cr.P.C. for the non-appearance of the aforesaid accused persons before the Magistrate. The bond amount executed for each of the aforesaid accused persons was Rs. 5,000/-. The learned Magistrate initiated only one proceedings as M.C. 229 of 2001 and as per order dated 18-4-2002 imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on each of the sureties. The operative portion of the said order reads as follows:- “Both CPs are duly served with notice. Called absent. They are the sureties of A3,4,7,13,27,28,29 in C.C. 701 of 1998. All these accused were released on bail on executing bond for Rs. 5000/- each. Subsequently the counter petitioners failed to produce any one of the accused. I do not find any reason not to forfeit the bond. Hence the bonds are forfeited and the CPs. are imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each. Issue D.W.” 2. Actually the Magistrate should have proceeded against Crl.R.P. No. 2106 of 2008 -:2:- the sureties for the default in appearance of each of the 7 accused persons and should have imposed independent penalty accordingly. That has not been done. However, at the instance of the sureties, they cannot be put to a more disadvantageous position than they are now placed. Since the appeal preferred by the revision petitioners before the Sessions Court, Alappuzha was dismissed as barred by limitation, there was no consideration of the appeal on the merits. Considering the fact that the petitioner is in impecunious circumstances and he does not seem to know the consequence of the accused for whom he stood as surety, jumping bail, I am inclined to reduce the penalty to Rs. 5,000/-. The petitioner shall remit the reduced penalty of Rs. 5,000/- within 45 days from today failing which he shall be proceeded against in accordance with law. V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE) ani. Crl.R.P. No. 2106 of 2008 -:3:- ani.