IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3092 of 2009()
1. MOHANAN, S/O.ACHUTHAN,
... Petitioner
2. RAMACHANDRAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN,
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.RAJESH CHAKYAT
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN
Dated :13/10/2009
O R D E R
P.S. GOPINATHAN, J
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.R.P.No. 3092 of 2009
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 13th day of October, 2009
O R D E R
1. Revision petitioners are the sureties of the
accused in C.P. No.108/2008 of on the files of Judicial
Magistrate of the First Class, Irinjalakuda. They got
released the accused, who was facing trial for offences
under Section 376 IPC and 3 (1) XI of the Scheduled Castes
and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, on
bail after executing a bond for Rs.10,000/- with undertaking
of produce the accused as and when called upon. But they
failed to produce the accused. Consequently the bail bond
was forfeited and notice was issued to the revision
petitioners calling upon them to show cause for not
imposing penalty. Though they entered appearance and
sought for time to produce the accused, later they failed
and remained absent. In their absence, taking note that
they had no cause to be shown for not imposing penalty, the
Crl.R.P.No. 3092 of 2009
-2-
learned Magistrate by order dated 22.05.2006 imposed a
penalty of Rs.10,000/- each. Feeling aggrieved they
preferred Crl.A. No.469/20006 before the Sessions Judge,
Thrissur. The learned Sessions Judge declined to interfere
with the impugned order. Assailing the legality, correctness
and propriety of the above order imposing penalty as
confirmed in appeal this revision petition was filed.
2. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners didn’t
assail the order imposing penalty. Only the quantum is
disputed. It is submitted that the revision petitioners had
later produced the accused before the committal court and
the case was committed to the sessions court and in the
above circumstances the revision petitioners are entitled to
a little more leniancy. In proof of the submission, the
learned counsel had produced copy of summons issued from
the Sessions Court to the accused. It is also submitted that
the revision petitioners are rustic villagers and the penalty
imposed is excessive.
3. Taking into account of the above circumstances
Crl.R.P.No. 3092 of 2009
-3-
and facts of the case I find that the penalty imposed is
excessive and that the Revision Petitioners are entitled to
leniency and that a penalty of Rs.5,000/- each would met the
ends of justice.
4. In the result, the Revision Petition is allowed in
part. While confirming the order imposing penalty, the
quantum is reduced to Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand
only) each.
P.S. GOPINATHAN,
JUDGE
shg/