IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2009 / 13TH SRAVANA 1931 CRL.A.No. 1513 of 2009(D) ----------------------------------- MC.25/2003 IN SC.25/2002 of SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI ............................................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.1/SURETY NO.1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ MALAPARAMBIL PUDUKKADAN AYYAPPAN, S/O.KUNHIKEERAN, OLAKARA,ENAVOOR,MALAPPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR SRI.E.M.UNNIKRISHNAN (MANJERI) RESPONDENT(S): STATE ----------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl. Appeal NO. 1513 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 4th day of August, 2009. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the order passed in M.C.25/03 in S.C.25/02. The first respondent in the M.C. stood as a surety to the accused in a case involving S.363 and 376 IPC and S.3(2) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The accused was released on a bond for Rs.10,000/- furnished by the sureties. The accused did not appear and the Court directed the sureties to produce him. They did not respond and failed to produce the accused. Therefore the Court forfeited the bond and levied a penalty of Rs.10,000/- each. It is against that decision the present appeal is preferred by the appellant. 2. Learned counsel would submit that there was no deliberate intention to evade the presence of the accused from the Court by the sureties and that the surety is in a poor financial position. Taking into consideration these submissions I feel that some indulgence can be shown. Already as per the Crl. Appeal NO. 1513 OF 2009 -:2:- order of this Court an amount of Rs.5,000/- has been deposited before the Court below. I think it will be sufficient amount and no further amount need to be realised. Therefore the Crl.Appeal is partly allowed and the penalty is reduced from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.5,000/-. Since the appellant has already deposited Rs.5,000/- before the Court below, let it be treated as the penalty in this case and he be exonerated from depositing any further amount before the Court below. The Crl.Appeal is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-