IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRL.A.No. 1895 of 2008()
1. BABU
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.K.SAJEEV
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :29/08/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
----------------------
Crl.A.Nos.1895 & 1896 of 2008
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of August 2008
J U D G M E N T
The common appellants were both the sureties of two
accused persons who faced indictment for offences punishable
inter alia under Sections 326 and 307 read with 149 I.P.C. The
case was pending before the learned Sessions Judge(Adhoc-III),
North Paravur. The accused persons were released on bail on
the basis of bonds executed by them with the petitioners as
sureties. Those bonds were executed for an amount of
Rs.10,000/- each. The accused did not appear as undertaken by
them and the bonds thus got forfeited. Show cause notice was
issued to the appellants to explain why penalty should not be
imposed on them. They appeared before the learned Sessions
Judge and prayed for time to produce the accused persons.
Though time was granted, they were not able to produce the
accused persons. It is, in these circumstances, that the
impugned orders were passed. In the first case which was
disposed of on 31/3/2008, the learned Judge imposed penalty of
Rs.10,000/- each on the appellants. In the next case which was
Crl.A.Nos1895 & 1896/2008 2
disposed of on 27/5/2008, the learned Sessions Judge, obviously
taking note of similar contumacious conduct earlier and the
imposition of penalty on them, indulgently reduced the penalty
amount to Rs.5,000/-, though the bond was for Rs.10,000/-. The
learned counsel for the appellants has advanced his arguments.
The learned counsel for the appellants prays only that leniency
may be shown to the appellants. There is no offer that if some
time were given, the appellants shall be able to produce the
accused persons.
2. I have considered all the relevant inputs. The
interests of public justice demand that the accused and their
sureties must scrupulously abide by the obligations undertaken
by them in the bonds executed by them in favour of the courts.
Any misplaced sympathy will be counter productive and will only
add to the scandalous delay in the judicial process. The
appellants must have known that they were taking up an onerous
responsibility of ensuring the presence of accused persons who
faced serious allegations for offences punishable under Sections
307 and 326 I.P.C. I find no merit in the plea of helplessness
raised by the learned counsel for the appellants that the
appellants are unable to trace and produce the accused persons.
Crl.A.Nos1895 & 1896/2008 3
Such a plea for leniency cannot obviously be accepted.
3. It is true that while the learned Sessions Judge in one
case imposed the penalty for Rs.10,000/-, he did in the latter
case impose only a penalty of Rs.5,000/-. I am not satisfied that
the course adopted by the learned Judge in the latter case will
entitle the appellants for any leniency in the previous case. I am
satisfied that the orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge
are fair, reasonable, cogent and just. The appellants are not
entitled for any leniency at the hands of this court.
4. In the result, these appeals are dismissed. The
learned counsel for the appellants pray that the appellants may
be granted time of one month to pay the amount and discharge
the liability. That request is accepted. The court below shall
initiate execution proceedings only after 29/9/2008.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr
Crl.A.Nos1895 & 1896/2008 4
Crl.A.Nos1895 & 1896/2008 5
R.BASANT, J
Crl.A.No.1513 of 2008
JUDGMENT
29/08/2008