IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRL.A.No. 742 of 2009()
1. LEELA, W/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN,
... Petitioner
2. ASHA, D/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN,
3. ANEESH, S/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN,
4. MUHAMMADALI, S/O. ABDULLA,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE
... Respondent
2. TAHSILDAR, VATAKARA.
For Petitioner :SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :22/05/2009
O R D E R
M.N.KRISHNAN, J
=====================
CRL.A. No.742 OF 2009
=====================
Dated this the 22nd day of May 2009
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the legal representatives of deceased
Gopalakrishnan and one Muhammadali against the order passed by the
Sessions Court, Kozhikode in M.C.No.13 of 2005. Gopalakrishnan and
Muhammadali stood as sureties to the second accused in S.C.No.158 of
2005 on executing a bond for Rs.25,000/-. The second accused did not
enter appearance and the sureties did not produce the accused and therefore
the court cancelled the bail, forfeited the bond and initiated proceedings
against the sureties and thereafter directed Gopalakrishnan and
Muhammadali to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- each within two months from
the date of order. The default sentence of 3 months’ simple imprisonment
was ordered. Thereafter Gopalakrishnan died and therefore his legal
representatives along with Muhammadali had come up in appeal.
2. At the stage of condoning the delay of 1194 days this Court
directed the legal representatives of Gopalakrishnan,viz., appellants 1 to 3
to deposit before the court below Rs.10,000/- and also directed the 4th
CRL A.742/2009 -:2:-
appellant to deposit a further sum of Rs.10,000/-. I am informed that the
said amounts had been deposited as ordered by this Court. In appeal under
Section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the court has to find out and
also can take into consideration whether there has been total deliberate
disobedience by the sureties in fulfilling the terms of the bond which they
have executed. The present appellants have got a case that they had not
been served with proper notice which prevented them from appearing before
court and making proper representation. Whatever it may be, there was a
duty cast upon these persons to produce the accused and there has been
some laches. But, I feel considering the financial circumstances, it is
desirable that some leniency can be shown to them in the imposition of
penalty.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned
Public Prosecutor, I find it proper that justice can be served by reducing the
penalty to Rs.10,000/- by appellants 1 to 3 together and Rs.10,000/- by the
4th appellant. As that amount is already in deposit the court can convert it as
penalty ordered by this Court. To this extent, the appeal is allowed and it is
made clear that no further penal proceedings need be taken against these
CRL A.742/2009 -:3:-
appellants for realisation of any further amount.
M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE
Cdp/-