IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3715 of 2008()
1. MONIKUTTY, W/O KOSHY, PUTHUPPALLY
... Petitioner
2. GOPINATHAN, S/O NANU, MANOJ BHAVANAM,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :18/11/2008
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
--------------------------------------------------
Crl.Revision Petition No. 3715 of 2008
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of November, 2008
O R D E R
Revision petitioners are the sureties of the accused in
C.C.377/2005 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate -II,
Chengannoor. By executing a bond undertaking to produce the
accused, if he fails to appear as and when called for. Petitioners
got the accused released on bail. The accused subsequently
failed to appear. In spite of notices, petitioners did not produce
the accused. Learned Magistrate, cancelled the bond and issued
notice to the petitioners to show cause why the bond shall not be
forfeited and the penalty should not be imposed against them
under Section 446 of Cr.P.C. Though petitioners appeared, they
did not show any reason. Learned Magistrate, thereafter, passed
an order directing the petitioners to pay penalty of Rs.5,000/-
each. Petitioners challenged that order before the Additional
Sessions Court, Mavelikkara in Crl.Appeal No.2/2008. Learned
Additional Sessions Judge on re-appreciation of the materials
Crl.R.P.No.3715/2008
– 2 –
confirmed the order and dismissed the appeal. It is challenged in
the revision.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners was
heard. The learned counsel submitted that though the accused
did not originally appeared in C.C.377/2005, subsequently
judgment in C.C.377/2005 was challenged before the Sessions
Court and the sentence was suspended. It was argued that
failure of the accused to appear was due to brain tumor and
accused had undergone a major surgery and in such
circumstances, courts below should have viewed the matter
leniently, and no penalty should have been imposed.
3. On hearing the learned counsel and going through the
orders of the courts below, I do not find any reason to interfere
this order. There was no procedural irregularity. Both the
courts have considered all the relevant aspects. Petitioners who
had executed a bond undertaking to produce the accused and
Crl.R.P.No.3715/2008
– 3 –
failed to produce in spite of the directions are bound to pay the
penalty as provided in the bond. Learned Magistrate only
imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, which is quite reasonable.
In the result, Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.
M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE
skr