IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2010 / 29TH SRAVANA 1932 CRL.A.No. 1742 of 2010() ----------------------------------- APPELLANT(S): IST RESPONDENT/COUNTER PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SHANMUGHAN PILLAI, S/O. NARAYANA PILLAI, MODAYIL HOUSE, KUTTOR, THIRUVALLA. BY ADV. SRI.ALEX.M.SCARIA RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------- Crl. APPEAL No.1742 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of August, 2010. J U D G M E N T The appellant is one of the sureties for the sole accused in S.C.No.396/07 of the Court of Addl. District and Sessions Judge (Ad hoc)–I, Pathanamhitta. As the accused jumped over the bail condition and not available for the trial, the court below registered M.C.No.100/09 u/s.446 of Cr.P.C. and though notice was issued and received, the appellant failed to produce the accused, for whom he stood as one of the sureties, consequently the court below imposed a penalty of Rs.20,000/-, against the sureties including the appellant. It is the above order challenged in this appeal. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, subsequently the accused surrendered before the court below and thereafter he was released on bail and now he is available for the trial. Therefore, the counsel submitted that the impugned order may be said aside. Crl. APPEAL No.1742 of 2010 2 3. I am unable to sustain the above contention. The accused was released on bail, upon the surety ship of the sureties, including the appellant and therefore the appellant is contractually obliged to produce the accused as and when required by the court below and in the present case, the appellant has miserably failed to comply with such contractual obligation. It was under the above legal and factual background, the learned Sessions Judge issued the impugned order. Therefore, I find no illegality with the order imposed. 4. However, it is a fact which is beyond dispute that subsequent to the impugned order, the accused surrendered and thereafter he was released on bail and he is now available for the trial. Considering the above fact, I am of the view that while upholding the order of the trial court imposing penalty, the penalty amount can be modified and reduced to Rs.6,000/-, which will be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. In the result, this criminal appeal is disposed of approving the correctness of the order impugned but modifying and reducing the penalty amount to Rs.6,000/- and accordingly the Crl. APPEAL No.1742 of 2010 3 appellant is directed to pay a sum of Rs.6,000/-, being the penalty u/s.446 of Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, as directed by this court by an order dated 26.5.2010 in Crl.MA.No.4709/10, the appellant has deposited a sum of Rs.6,000/-, as evidenced by receipt dated 24.6.2010 issued from the District Court, Pathanamthitta, which produced before this court by memo dated 14.7.2010 and the said amount can be ordered to be adjusted against the amount now fixed by this court. I find no reason to reject the above submission. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the court below to adjust a sum of Rs.6,000/- deposited by the appellant before the said court as per the receipt dated 24.6.2010, against the amount of penalty as modified and refixed by this court. The coercive steps if any, taken against the appellant shall stand cancelled. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. ami/