IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2009 / 15TH ASHADHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2186 of 2009 --------------------------------------- CRA.600/2008 of SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKOE CC.157/2002 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-III, KOZHIKODE (MC 18/07) .................... PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS/SURETIES: 1. REYMOND MATHEWS @ ROY THETHOR, S/O.THETHOR, H.NO.5/2007, `PRAKASH', KARIMBANAPALAM, P.O.S.V.COLONY, KOZHIKODE. 2. THARAMMAL SURENDRAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN NAIR, H.NO.28/1851, NELLIKODE P.O., CHEVAYUR, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN SRI.P.M.PADMANABHAN SRI.P.A.HARISH RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/STATE: STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2186 of 2009 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioners were the sureties to the accused in C.C.No.157/2002 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-III, Kozhikode. Proceedings were initiated under Section 446 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Under Annexure-A1 order dated 19.2.2007 they were directed to pay penalty of Rs.10,000/- each. Petitioners filed Crl.A.No.600/2008 before Sessions Court, Kozhikode. Under Annexure-A2 order delay in filing the appeal was condoned, on deposit of cost of Rs.2,000/- each within ten days from 21.10.2008. Under Annexure-A3 order, time for deposit was extended by two weeks from 1.11.2008. By Annexure-A4 order dated 17.11.2008 the period was extended by one month. By Annexure-A5 order dated 16.2.2009, further time prayed for was rejected and consequently, petition was dismissed. Annexure-A5 order shows that certified copy was obtained on 20.3.2009. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure on 3.7.2009 CRMC 2186/09 2 to quash Annexure-A5 order. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners was heard. 3. The argument of the learned counsel is that petitioners could not comply with the order due to the financial difficulties and in such circumstances, learned Sessions Judge should have granted further time. 4. From Annexure-A2 to A4 orders, it is clear that learned Sessions Judge had given sufficient time to the petitioners. Still, they did not avail of that opportunity. In such circumstances, they are not entitled to get further extension. Still, in the interest of justice, if the amount as directed in Annexure-A2 order is deposited within two days from today, it will be treated as in compliance with Annexure-A2 order. Petition is disposed. 6th July, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv