IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 5TH APRIL 2011 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 659 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRA.650/2009 of III ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE MC.63/2009 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, NADAPURAM .................... REVN. PETITIONERS: PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS ------------------------------------------- 1. MADATHIL MAJEED, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.MOIDEEN, ULLIYERI AMSOM DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE. 2. CHERUVALATH DAMODHARAN, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.KUNHANDI, EDAKULAM AMSOM DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHARAM.P RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT/STATE -------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31. BY P.P. SRI V. TEK CHAND THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/04/2011 ALONG WITH CRL.R.P.NO.662/11, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------------------ Crl.R.P. Nos. 659 & 662 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated the 5th Day of April , 2011 ORDER As the above two Crl.R.Ps are preferred by the sureties for different accused but in the same case, and the impugned orders are passed by the same court, these Crl.R.Ps are heard together and being disposed of by this common order. 2. The revision petitioners in Cr.R.P.No.659 of 2001 is the sureties for 2nd accused in C.C.No.744/2008 of the court of Judicial first Class Magistrate, Nadapuram whereas Crl.R.P.No.662/2009 is preferred the sureties for Ist accused in the very same calendar case, which is subsequently renumbered as C.C.No.606/2010. As the revision petitioners failed to produce the accused for whom they stood as sureties, the learned Magistrate initiated proceedings under section 446 Cr.P.C. and instituted M.C.No.63/2009 against the petitioners in Crl.R.P. No.659/11 and M.C.No.64 against the revision petitioners in Crl.R.P.No.662/11. The learned Magistrate finally disposed of those M.Cs on 30.6.2009 imposing penalty of Rs.15,000/- against the above CRL.R.P 659 & 662 /11 -:2:- revision petitioners by two separate orders in the above two MCs. 3. Challenging the above orders, though the revision petitioners have preferred separate appeals, as Crl.A.No.650/2009 and 651/2009 respectively , the court of III Addl. Sessions Judge, Kozhikode dismissed both the appeals by separate orders dated 31.12. 2010 in those appeals confirming the order issued by the learned Magistrate under section 446 Cr.P.C and confirming the penalty amount. It is the above orders of the courts below challenged in the above two Crl.R.Ps. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. Counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the second accused, for whom the petitioners in Crl.R.P.No.659/2011 stood as a sureties, is acquitted subsequently by the learned Magistrate. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that the accused, for whom the revision petitioners in Crl.R.P.No.652/11, stood CRL.R.P 659 & 662 /11 -:3:- as sureties, is likely to acquit since that case also is connected with the earlier case wherein the 2nd accused was acquitted. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, a lenient view may be taken in the matter of fixing the penalty. 6. I have carefully considered the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners. I find no reason to interfere with the findings of the learned Magistrate and the appellate court and fixing the liability on the revision petitioners under section 446 Cr.P.C. The revision petitioners are being the sureties for the accused, are contractually bound to produce the accused as and when the court demanded for the same. In the present cases, the revision petitioners miserably failed to discharge their contractual obligation and, therefore, the orders of the learned Magistrate as well as the appellate court is absolutely correct and does not warrant any interference. 7. But it is relevant to note that the accused had subsequently appeared and A2 undergone the ordeal of CRL.R.P 659 & 662 /11 -:4:- trial and he secured an acquittal. It is also relevant to note that A1 also appeared before the court and he is facing the trial. Considering the above facts, according to me, the amount imposed against the revision petitioners as penalty, requires modification. In the result, this Crl.R.Ps are disposed of confirming the liability fixed on the revision petitioners under section 446 of Cr.P.C. But the penalty amount imposed against the revision petitioners are modified and reduced into Rs.5000/-. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that as per the interim order passed by this Court on 4.3.2011, at the time of admitting the revision petitions, each of the Petitioners have already deposited a sum of Rs.5000/- in the trial court and accordingly, they have produced the receipt before this court by filing a memo and it is the further submission that the amount already deposited by the petitioners may be adjusted towards the amount modified and fixed by this court. I find no reason to reject the above submission. Therefore, there will be a direction to the CRL.R.P 659 & 662 /11 -:5:- trial court to adjust the amount already deposited by each of the revision petitioners in the trial court in Crl.M.A.No.2084/11 and 2091/11 respectively on the basis of the order issued by this court on 4.3.2011 in the above revision petitions towards the penalty amount, as modified and fixed by this court. In the light of the above modification of the penalty amount, and as the petitioners have already deposited the modified amount, all coercive steps initiated against the petitioners are cancelled. The Crl.R.Ps are disposed of Accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE kvm/-