Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Subodhaya vs State of Kerala

Subodhaya vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jan 03, 2023
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1409637

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
CRL.A/1400/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Subodhaya

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....appellants areconcerned, no legal infirmity could be found. admittedly the appellants have executed a bond for `1 lakh, for ensuring the presence of the accused as and when required but, they could not fulfil the said condition. therefore, the initiation of proceedings were legally sustainable. however, with regard to the penalty imposed, i am of the view that, a lenient view can be taken. this is particularly:4 : because of the reason that, the learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that, the financial situation of the appellants are very poor and the amount imposed as penalty by the learned sessions judge is beyond their needs.7. after considering all relevant aspects, i am of the view that some indulgence can be shown with regard to the amount of penalty imposed. in the facts and circumstances, i deem it appropriate to fix the amount as `15,000/- each. accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the order passed bythe sessions court, kasaragode in m.c. no.18/2021 in s.c. no.383/2020 is hereby confirmed subject to the modification that the amount imposed as penalty shall stand reduced as `15,000/- instead of `25,000/- as ordered by the learned sessions judge. the appellants shall deposit the said amount within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment failing which the learned sessions judge shall be at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings for realisation.sd/- ziyad rahman a.a. judge ncd

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 13TH POUSHA, 1944 CRL.A NO. 1400 OF 2022 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTSC 383/2020 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS & MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,KASARAGOD APPELLANT/S: 1 SUBODHAYA AGED 47 YEARS S/O. VISHWANATH, RESIDING AT THILAK NAGAR, BAMBRANA VILLAGE AND POST, KASARAGOD DISTRICT., 2 GANESH KUMAR AGED 60 YEARS S/O. LAKSHMANA, RESIDING AT THILAK NAGAR, BAMBRANA VILLAGE AND POST, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, BY ADVS. T.MADHU C.R.SARADAMANI SHAHID AZEEZ RENJISH S. MENON RESPONDENT/S: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER KASARAGOD POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671121 ADV VIPIN NARAYAN-PP THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: :2 :

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2023 The appellants are the sureties of the accused in S.C.

No.383/2020 on the files of the Sessions Court, Kasaragode. The proceedings impugned in this case are initiated under Section 446 of Cr.P.C. by the learned Sessions Judge. The accused in the said case was released on bail on the basis of the surety bond executed by the appellants for an amount of `1 lakh. The bail was granted during the crime stage and later, when the final report submitted and summons was issued to the accused, he failed to appear before the court.

2. Even though, notices were issued to the appellants, they appeared before the learned Sessions Judge and sought time to produce the accused. However, they could not procure the presence of the accused and therefore the proceedings were

initiated under Section 446 of Cr.P.C. as M.C. No.18/2021. It culminated in an order by which the penalty of `25,000/- each was imposed upon the appellants. The said order is under challenge in this appeal. :3 :

3. Heard Smt. C.R. Saradamani, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri. Vipin Narayanan, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

4. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants

is that, the appellants have taken all earnest efforts to trace out the accused, but they could not ensure the same. It is pointed out that the bail was taken during the crime stage and the final report was submitted after four years of registration of the crime. By that time the accused absconded. In such circumstances, the learned counsel for the appellants prays for a lenient view with regard to the amount of penalty imposed upon the appellants.

5. On the other hand the learned Public Prosecutor opposes the said prayer.

6. After going through the records, I am of the view that as far as the proceedings initiated against the appellants are

concerned, no legal infirmity could be found. Admittedly the appellants have executed a bond for `1 lakh, for ensuring the presence of the accused as and when required but, they could not fulfil the said condition. Therefore, the initiation of proceedings were legally sustainable. However, with regard to the penalty imposed, I am of the view that, a lenient view can be taken. This is particularly

:4 : because of the reason that, the learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that, the financial situation of the appellants are very poor and the amount imposed as penalty by the learned Sessions Judge is beyond their needs.

7. After considering all relevant aspects, I am of the view that some indulgence can be shown with regard to the amount of penalty imposed. In the facts and circumstances, I deem it appropriate to fix the amount as `15,000/- each. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the order passed by

the Sessions Court, Kasaragode in M.C. No.18/2021 in S.C. No.383/2020 is hereby confirmed subject to the modification that the amount imposed as penalty shall stand reduced as `15,000/- instead of `25,000/- as ordered by the learned Sessions Judge. The appellants shall deposit the said amount within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment failing which the learned Sessions Judge shall be at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings for realisation.

Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE ncd

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial