IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2009 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1931 CRL.A.No. 1012 of 2009() ---------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26/08/2003 IN MC 13/2003 IN SC.79/2001 of PRL.ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR. .................... APPELLANTS/COUNTER PETITIONERS: -------------------------------------------------------- 1. CHUKRAN, AGED 66 YEARS, S/O.THELAKKATTUKUNNU KUNJAN, THIRUVILLWAMALA VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.MUNIYARKODE CHINNA, KANIYARKODE VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.K.A.SATHEESH BABU RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K. PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ M.N. KRISHNAN, J. --------------------------- CRL.A.NO.1012 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the order of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Thrissur in M.C.No.13/2003 in S.C.No.79/2001. The appellants are the two sureties of the first accused and as the first accused did not appear and in spite of notice as the sureties could not produce him, the bonds were forfeited and they were directed to pay a penalty of Rs.10,000/=. It is against that decision, the present appeal is preferred. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants persuasively submits before me that subsequent to the same though an action was initiated against the accused, it was dropped. It may not be a ground to exonerate these people but it has to be borne in mind that these two sureties are financially in a very bad stage and they find it extremely difficult to meet their both ends. It is also contended that there was no willful conduct or deliberate intention for the appellants not to produce the first accused before the court. So, taking into 2 CRL.A.NO.1012/09 consideration factum of the financial constrain as well as absence of a mens rea to evade objection of the accused, I am inclined to show some leniency and therefore, I reduce the imposition of penalty from Rs.10,000/= each to Rs.5,000/= each. Therefore, the Criminal Appeal is disposed of as follows: The appellants herein are directed to pay a penalty of Rs.5,000/= each and they shall pay the same on or before 31.8.2009, failing which the court shall take steps to realise the amount in accordance with law. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl 3 CRL.A.NO.1012/09 4 CRL.A.NO.1012/09