IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4602 of 2006(A)
1. SARASWATHY AMMA, W/O.REGHUNATHAN NAIR,
... Petitioner
2. BABU, S/O. PACHAN,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.R.SATISH KUMAR
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN
Dated :29/09/2009
O R D E R
P.S.GOPINATHAN, J.
----------------------------------------
Crl.R.P.No.4602 of 2006
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of September, 2009
ORDER
The revision petitioners are the respondents in M.C.No.3 of
2002 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II,
Kollam. They were sureties of the accused in C.C.No.3434 of
1998 who was facing trial for offence under section 420 I.P.C.
The first revision petitioner is none other than the wife of the
accused. The revision petitioners got the accused before the
trial court released on bail after executing bail bond of
Rs.8,000/- each. Despite the undertaking to produce as and
when called upon they failed to produce the accused.
Consequently the learned Magistrate forfeited the bail bond.
Though the revision petitioners were called upon to show cause
for not imposing penalty, they didn’t show any cause for not
imposing penalty. Consequently, by order dated 20.5.2002 the
revision petitioners were imposed a penalty of Rs.8,000/- each.
Assailing the above order, Criminal Appeal No.184 of 2002 was
preferred. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Kollam to
Crl.R.P.No.4602 of 2006
2
whom the appeal was made over, by judgment dated 7/10/2006
reduced the penalty to Rs.4,000/- each.
2. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the
above said order, as modified in appeal, this revision petition was
preferred.
3. Three grounds are raised in the memorandum of
revision. The first and third grounds are regarding the financial
position of the revision petitioners. Financial position of the
revision petitioners is not at all a reason to interfere with the
order impugned. So, those grounds require no consideration.
4. The second ground raised is that the revision
petitioners were not given an opportunity to produce the
accused. That is also not correct. The revision petitioners didn’t
respond to the notice. This is a case where the revision
petitioners failed to avail the opportunity. According to the
learned counsel, the accused was absconding and that the
revision petitioners were not in a position to produce the
accused. There is no merit in the contention.
5. Whatever may be the reason, there was failure to
Crl.R.P.No.4602 of 2006
3
produce the accused. Hence, the trial court was justified in
forfeiting the bond. Since the revision petitioners didn’t show
any cause for not imposing penalty, the trial court imposed the
penalty. In appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge was
lenient in reducing the same to half of the bond amount.
According to the learned counsel, the first revision petitioner is
not in a position to produce the absconding accused who is not
known for more than 7 years. Taking into account of the
handicap of lady like the 1st revision petitioner I find that she is
entitled to a little more leniency and that a penalty of Rs.2,000/-
would suffice. But the 2nd revision petitioner is not entitled to
any such leniency.
In the result, the revision petition is allowed in part. The
penalty imposed in respect of the 1st revision petitioner is
reduced to Rs.2,000/-. In all other respects, this revision petition
is dismissed as devoid of merit.
P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE
Skj.