IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRL.A.No. 663 of 2010()
1. UPENDRANATHAN, S/O.SAHADEVAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.R.V.SREEJITH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN
Dated :26/03/2010
O R D E R
V.K.MOHANAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
Crl.A.No. 663 of 2010
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 26th day of March, 2010
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is preferred by one of the sureties
in S.C.No.675 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the
Additional Sessions Judge for the Trial of Abkari Act
Cases, Neyyattinkara, against whom proceedings under
Section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is issued
by which a sum of Rs.10,000/- was imposed as penalty.
2. The appellant along with another person
stood as sureties for the second accused in the above
sessions case, which was instituted for the offence
punishable under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act and
upon their suretyship, the second accused was released
on bail, but subsequently, he jumped over the bail
condition and hence, the court below registered
M.C.No.36 of 2006 against the sureties. Thus, the
appellant challenged in this appeal the order of penalty
of Rs.10,000/- imposed against him.
Crl.ANO.663 of 2010
:-2-:
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
the appellant is unable to produce the accused for whom he
stood as one of sureties since the accused had gone abroad.
So, according to the learned counsel, a lenient view may be
taken in the matter of penalty amount.
4. As per the undertaking of the appellant and as per
the contractual obligation, the appellant is bound to produce
the accused for whom he stood as surety. In the present
case, though notice was served on the appellant in the
above proceedings, no explanation was offered and hence
the court below is constrained to pass the impugned order.
Under the above factual and legal background, I find no
illegality with the order of the court below imposing penalty
against the appellant.
5. However, from the facts and circumstances involved
in the case, it appears that the second accused had gone
abroad and the appellant is not in a position to procure the
presence of the accused in terms of the undertaking made
Crl.ANO.663 of 2010
:-3-:
by him while executing the bond. Therefore, I am of the
view that while sustaining the order imposing penalty, the
amount fixed by the court can be modified and same can be
reduced and fixed as Rs.5000/- which will be sufficient to
meet the ends of justice. Learned counsel brought to my
notice that as ordered by this Court in Crl.M.A.No.5848 of
2008, the appellant had already deposited a sum of
Rs.5000/-. If that be so, I am of the view that the said
remittance can be adjusted towards the penalty amount as
revised and refixed by this Court.
In the result, this appeal is disposed of by
sustaining the order dated 26.7.2007 in M.C.No.36 of 2006
in S.C.No.675 of 2005, but reducing the penalty amount
from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.5,000/- and the court below is
directed to adjust the amount of Rs.5,000/-, which is already
deposited by the appellant as per order dated 2.7.2008 of
this Court mentioned above, towards the payment of the
amount of penalty as reduced and refixed by this Court. It
Crl.ANO.663 of 2010
:-4-:
is made clear that as the appellant had already deposited a
sum of Rs.5000/-, he need not make any further payment
and the coercive steps, if any, taken against the appellant
shall stand cancelled.
This Criminal Appeal is disposed of as above.
V.K.Mohanan,
Judge
MBS/
Crl.ANO.663 of 2010
:-5-:
V.K.MOHANAN, J.
——————————————–
Crl.A.NO. OF 200
————————————
J U D G M E N T
DATED: -2-2010
Crl.ANO.663 of 2010
:-6-: