IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2008 / 21ST POUSHA 1929 CRL.A.No. 261 of 2001() ----------------------- CC.484/1996 of ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT: COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------------- A.ABDUL RAHMAN C/O.M.V.DEVASSY MOOLAMATTATHIL HOUSE VALLUR ROAD, P.O.POONITHURA. BY ADV. SRI.T.O.XAVIER RESPONDENT: ACCUSED ----------------------------------- 1. P.MADHAVAN, DEVI VILA MANNA LANE, NEAR MANNA THOTTAKATTUKARA, ALUVA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.T.MOHANAN THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT IS ABSENT AND ALSO THERE IS NO REPRESENTATION ON HIS BEHALF. IN THE RESULT, I DISMISS THIS CRL.APPEAL. 11.1.2008 SD/- K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------- Crl.A.No.261 of 2001 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT The public prosecutor appears for the respondent state. Service complete. This appeal is under Code of 449 of Crl.P.C. The petitioners were sureties to the accused in S.C.No.576 of 2006 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc III)- North Parur. The bond was executed before the committal court and after committal of the case of the Sessions Court despite for the issuance of summons the accused did not appear and applications were being made by counsel for execusing his absence on 17.1.2007, 31.1.2007 and 13.2.2007 and on 21.2.2007 this case stood posted there was no representation even on behalf of the accused. Despite collusive steps taken absence of the petitioners could not be approved. The Sessions Court consequently was satisfied that the bond stood forfeited. Notice was issued interalia to the appeals to showcause as to why the bond amount should not be realised from them. Despite service of notice and posting of the case 23.6.2007, 10.7.2007, 26.7.2007, 30.7.2007 and on 31.7.2007 petitioners did not show any cause as to whey the bond amount should not be imposed as Crl.A.261/2001 2 penalty against them and therefore the impugned order was passed impossing the bond amount of Rs.20,000/- each as penalty on the payments. 2. Though contentions are raised procedure adopted by the learned Additional Sessions counsel for the appellants submits that the grievance of the appellants is only that the entire bond amount of Rs.20,000/- which is highly excessive and which the payment could not raised was imposed as penalty without granting remission of even a portion of the amount considering the entire circumstances of the case. I am also of the view that the entire amount of Rs.20,000/- should not have been imposed as penalty on the appellants who were the sureties to the accused. In the result, allowing this Crl.Appeal in part. I reduce the amount of penalty half to Rs.7,500/- each remission giving the balance amount as the bond. The appellant shall deposit the amounts so reduced is at the rate of Rs.7,500/- positively within one month from today failing which the court below shall take steps to realise the amount of penalty from the appellants. K.P.BALACHANDRAN, Judge csl