IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2008 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3835 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.215/2008 of SESSIONS COURT, KASARAGOD MC.35/2003 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KASARAGOD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- BABY, D/O.MALINGA, AGED 50 YEARS, ARCHANA NILAYA, J.P.COLONY, RAMDAS NAGAR P.O., KASARAGODE. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE: ----------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PP SRI AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/12/2008, ALONG WITH CRRP NO. 3836 OF 2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................... CRL.R.P.NOs. 3835 & 3836 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2008 ORDER Revision petitions are filed by the first surety to accused 1 and 2 in C.C.657 of 2002 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kasargod. Petitioner, along with the other surety executed bonds undertaking to produce the accused as and when called for. When first accused Navas failed to appear and the sureties failed to produce him finding that bond was forfeited, learned Magistrate registered M.C.34 of 2003 against revision petitioner and other surety and issued a show cause notice why the penalty shall not be imposed. As second accused also failed to appear and sureties failed to produce, learned Magistrate registered M.C. 35 of 2003 against his sureties finding that bond has been forfeited directing to show cause why penalty shall not be realised. notice. Sureties though received notices, did not appear or showed any cause. 2. Learned Magistrate thereafter imposed a fine of Rs.7500/- each in both the cases by separate orders. Second counter petitioner in both cases, filed appeals before Sessions Court, Kasargod and learned Sessions Judge reduced the penalty to Rs.2500/- each. Revision petitioner though filed appeals, did not file appeals in time. Learned Sessions Judge dismissed the petitions filed by revision CRRP 3836 & 3835/2008 2 petitioner to condone the delay and dismissed the applications and consequently dismissed Crl.A.214 of 2008 as against the order in M.C.34 of 2003 and Crl.A.215 of 2008 as against order in Crl.M.C.35 of 2003. Crl.R.P.3836 is filed against the dismissal of Crl.A.214 of 2008 and Crl.R.P.3835 is filed against the order in Crl.A.215 of 2008. 3. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. Learned counsel pointed out that learned Sessions Judge dismissed the petitions to condone the delay without considering the merit by a non-speaking order and consequently dismissed the appeal and therefore orders are to be set aside. Learned counsel also pointed out that the second counter petitioner in both the MCs challenged the very same orders and learned Sessions Judge had already reduced the penalty to Rs.2500/- each as against him and in such circumstances, penalty may be reduced. 5. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, interest of justice will be met if penalty imposed by learned Magistrate in M.C.34 of 2003 and M.C.35 of 2003 is reduced to Rs.2500/- each as against revision petitioner. Revision petitions are disposed accordingly. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-