IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRL.A.No. 2760 of 2008()
1. ALI, S/O.PATTUKARA ALAVI, PALAPPAILY
... Petitioner
2. HAMSA, S/O.VATTOLI ALVAI, PALAPPAILY
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE PUBLIC
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.RAJESH CHAKYAT
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN
Dated :02/02/2009
O R D E R
V.K.MOHANAN, J.
----------------------------------------------
CRL.A. No. 2760 OF 2008
----------------------------------------------
Dated, 2nd February, 2009.
JUDGMENT
The appellants herein are the sureties of the 8th accused in
S.C.No.424/2008 of the Additional Sessions Court, Fast Track 1,
Thrissur. As the 8th accused absconded, notice was issued to the
appellants and though they were heard, no explanation was offered
and accordingly, the trial court imposed penalty at the rate of
Rs.25,000/- each and there was a direction to remit the amount on
or before 30.10.2008. It is the above order challenged in this
appeal.
2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and also the learned Public Prosecutor.
3. The learned counsel submitted that the appellants have
made all attempts to procure the presence of the absconding 8th
accused but they have failed in their attempt as the 8th accused is
in gulf country. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that the
other accused had already faced the trial and they were
accordingly acquitted. Thus it is submitted by the learned counsel
that a lenient view may be taken.
4. It is a fact that because of the non cooperation of the 8th
Crl.A.No.2760/08
-:2:-
accused who was released on bail on the basis of the suretyship of the
appellants, the trial court had undertaken a trial against all the accused
remaining accused. It is also incumbent upon the court below to
undertake one more trial on appearance of the 8th accused. Therefore it
cannot be held that the order of the court below is illegal, or incorrect.
However, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
appellants, being the sureties, tried their best for procuring the
absconding accused and their attempt resulted in vain because the 8th
accused is somewhere in gulf countries. Considering the over all
situation, I am of the view that the amount imposed as penalty can be
reduced and refixed as Rs.15,000/-(Fifteen thousand only).
5. This Court while admitting the appeal, by order dated
25.11.2008 in Crl.M.A.No.11676/2008, stayed the execution of the
impugned order on condition of each of the appellants depositing an
amount of Rs.5000/- before the court below within a period of 30 days
from the date of the above order. The learned counsel submitted that
those amounts had already been deposited. If that be so, towards the
compliance of this order, each of the appellants need to further deposit
Rs.10,000/-. Thus the appellants are directed to deposit Rs.10,000/-
each, within one month from today. The amount already deposited in
terms of the stay order can be appropriated towards the final settlement
Crl.A.No.2760/08
-:3:-
of the amount refixed by this Court. If the amount so deposited, the same
shall be treated as compliance of this order and all coercive steps shall
be deferred. It is made clear that if the amount so ordered to pay is not
paid within the stipulated time, the court below is free to take all coercive
steps to realise the amount.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE
kvm/-
Crl.A.No.2760/08
-:4:-
V.K.MOHANAN, J.
No….
Judgment/Order
Dated: