Jamaludheen vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Dec 22, 2023

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1412213

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1412213
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice P.G. Ajithkumar
Decided On: Dec 22, 2023
Case Number: CRL.A/1916/2023

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Jamaludheen

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....on the same day delivered the following:p.g. ajithkumar, j.…................................. .................................................................. dated this the 22nd day of december, 2023judgmentthis is an application filed under section 449 of the code of criminal procedure.2. the appellants are the sureties of accused no.3 in scno.390 of 2015 before the sessions court, kozhikkode. his case was split up and refiled as sc no.1035 of 2018, sincehe absconded from the process of court. case against accused nos.1 and 2 was disposed of earlier acquitting them. since the presence of the appellant could not be procured the bond executed by him along with the appellant - sureties was forfeited. they were given notice as provided under section 446(1) of the code. they did not appear before the court below. accordingly, penalty of rs.25,000/- each was imposed on them. the appellants assail the said order in this appeal.3. heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned public prosecutor.4. the learned counsel for the appellants would submitthat although it is noted in the impugned order that notices were given to the appellants, they were not actually served with any notice and they could come to know about the proceedings only when warrants were issued against them. it is further submitted that the appellants are coolie workers, having no sufficient means of income and imposition of rs.25,000/- as penalty is too harsh and disproportionate. 5 when it is stated in the impugned order that notices were served on the appellant, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that notices were not really given to the appellants cannot be accepted. however, having the appellants apparently been rustic persons with only limited knowledge about the proceedings of the court, a lenient view should have been taken by the court below. of course, the bond amount was rs.50,000/- and the penalty imposed is only rs.25,000/-. the accused subsequently,.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 1ST POUSHA, 1945 CRL.A NO. 1916 OF 2023 CRIME NO.0/0 OF , AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT SC 1035/2018 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL FOR MARADU CASES) KOZHIKODE APPELLANT/S: JAMALUDHEEN AGED 42 YEARS S/O IBRAHIM, CHATHANKANDY HOUSE, KANIYAMPATTA, VAITHIRI, WAYANAD, PIN - 673576 BY ADVS. S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI THAJUNA MARIA FRANCIS RESPONDENT/S: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 OTHER PRESENT: SMT MAYA MN,,,GP THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.
…................................. .................................................................. Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2023

JUDGMENT

This is an application filed under Section 449 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The appellants are the sureties of accused No.3 in SC

No.390 of 2015 before the Sessions Court, Kozhikkode. His case was split up and refiled as SC No.1035 of 2018, sincehe absconded from the process of court. Case against accused Nos.1 and 2 was disposed of earlier acquitting them. Since the presence of the appellant could not be procured the bond executed by him along with the appellant - sureties was forfeited. They were given notice as provided under Section 446(1) of the Code. They did not appear before the court below. Accordingly, penalty of Rs.25,000/- each was imposed on them. The appellants assail the said order in this appeal.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit

that although it is noted in the impugned order that notices were given to the appellants, they were not actually served with any notice and they could come to know about the proceedings only when warrants were issued against them. It is further submitted that the appellants are coolie workers, having no sufficient means of income and imposition of Rs.25,000/- as penalty is too harsh and disproportionate. 5 When it is stated in the impugned order that notices were served on the appellant, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that notices were not really given to the appellants cannot be accepted. However, having the appellants apparently been rustic persons with only limited knowledge about the proceedings of the court, a lenient view should have been taken by the court below. Of course, the bond amount was Rs.50,000/- and the penalty imposed is only Rs.25,000/-. The accused subsequently, surrendered before the court and case against him was tried and ended in acquittal. That is not a sufficient reason to absolve the appellants from liability altogether. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed in part and in modification of the impugned order, the appellants are directed to pay Rs.15,000/- each. Sd/- P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE Dxy

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2023 Same Parties Jamaludheen vs State of Kerala Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice P.G. Ajithkumar