IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2010 / 4TH ASHADHA 1932 CRL.A.No. 1179 of 2010 ------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23/09/2009 IN MC.54/2009 IN SC.1928/2008 of I ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/COUNTER PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.KOCHAPPI, D/O.KONTHILA, LAKSHAMVEEDU, MUNDACKAL, MURUKKUMPUZHA, VAILOOR VILLAGE, REPRESENTED BY THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE,SUNITHA,D/O.RAJAMMA, MANAKKATTUVILAKOM VEEDU, MENAKULAM WEST. 2. SUNITHA, D/O.RAJAMMA, MANAKKATTUVILAKOM VEEDU, MENAKULAM WEST. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED RESPONDENT: PETITIONER ------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY P.P. SRI VENUGOPAL. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.A. No. 1179 OF 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated the 25th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT This appeal is filed at the instance of the sureties in S.C.No.1928/2008 of the court of Additional Sessions Judge-I, Thiruvananthapuram, challenging the order dated 23-9-2009 in M.C.No.54/2009 in SC 1928 of 2008 by which penalty imposed under Section 446 of Cr.P.C. 2. The accused in the above case, for whom the appellants stood as sureties, jumped over the bail condition and the appellants failed to produce the accused in terms of their undertaking and hence, the court below issued the impugned order by which each of the appellants is ordered to pay a penalty of Rs. 20,000/- 3. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that subsequently, the accused was arrested and produced at the instance of the second surety, the 2nd appellant herein, on 23.9.22009, the date on which the impugned order was passed. However, as the accused was produced after passing the impugned order, the matter could not brought CRL.A.No.1179/10 -:2:- to the notice of the court. 4. It is also submitted that the first surety, namely, Kochappi is no more and she is the sister of the second surety and hence, this appeal is preferred by the second surety on behalf of herself and also on behalf of the first surety being the legal representative of the first surety. As the appellants failed to produce the accused when the case was taken for consideration, I find no illegality with the order passed by the trial court. But considering the fact that the accused was subsequently arrested, produced and he was released on bail, I am of the view that while maintaining the order of penalty imposed against the appellants, the penalty amount can be reduced and imposing a penalty of Rs.5000/- each on the sureties is sufficient to meet the ends of justice. In the result, while confirming the order of penalty imposed against the sureties, the amount is modified and reduced and fixed as Rs.5000/- each on the appellants/sureties. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that while condoning the delay, this Court directed the 2nd appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- on behalf of CRL.A.No.1179/10 -:3:- the appellants and accordingly the same was deposited by the 2nd appellant and she has produced the receipt dated 20.3.2010 to show the remittance. If that be so, I am of the view that the said amount already deposited can be adjusted towards the penalty amount as ordered by this court. Therefore, there will be direction to the trial court to adjust a sum of Rs.10,000/- which already deposited by the 2nd appellant/2nd surety in terms of the order dated 9.3.2009 in Crl.M.A.No.1911/2010 issued by this Court against the penalty amount against the appellant now revised and refixed by this Court. Coercive steps if any taken against the appellants shall stand cancelled. This Crl.Appeal is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE kvm/- CRL.A.No.1179/10 -:4:- O.P.No. JUDGMENT Dated:..