IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2008 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1744 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.532/2007 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE MC.40/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-IV, KOZHIKODE .................... REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. M. MURALIDHARAN, AGED 28 YEARS, SON OF SREEDHARAN, CHANETHODI HOUSE, CHERUKAVU AMSOM AND DESOM, ERANADU TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. ABDUL MAJEED, SON OF MOOSA VAIDYAR, KUTTITHODIYIL, PALLIPURATHU, MAILANGOTTU, CHRUKAVU AMSOM AND DESOM OF MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB ABRAHAM SMT.KOCHUMOL KODUVATH RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.1744 of 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 2 nd day of June, 2008 ORDER The petitioners, who were the sureties for the accused in C.C.No.939 of 1999 on the file of the J.F.C.M-IV, Kozhikode , which was a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, were proceeded against under Section 446 Cr.P.C consequent on the non appearance of the accused in the above case. To the show cause notice issued to them in Form No.48 of the 11nd Schedule to Cr.P.C, the petitioners had no valid explanation to offer except to contend that they were not aware of the whereabouts of the accused and were therefore unable to apprehend him and produce him before the court. The learned Magistrate instead of imposing the entire bond amount of Rs.15,000/- as penalty, reduced the penalty to Rs.10,000/-. Aggrieved by the order of the trial court, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court. Since the appeal was filed out of time it was accompanied by a petition to condone the delay as C.M.P.No.1323/2007. The said petition to Crl.R.P.No.1744 of 2008 2 condone the delay was dismissed and consequently the appeal was also dismissed. It is ggrieved by the said dismissal that the petitioners have preferred this Revision. 2. Considering the fact that the petitioners were not either passively or actively responsible for the unforeseen abscondence of the accused in C.C.No.939 of 1999 and also having regard to the fact that their appeal was not considered on merit, I am inclined to reduce the penalty to Rs.5,000/- each. The petitioners shall deposit the reduced penalty within one month from today, failing which proceedings shall be initiated against them for realisation of the same. This Crl.R.P. is disposed of as above. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj