Moideen Kutty vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jan 27, 2022

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1445997

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/1445997
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath
Decided On: Jan 27, 2022
Case Number: CRL.A/102/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Moideen Kutty

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....counsel for the appellants and sri. aravind v. mathew, the learned public prosecutor.4. admittedly, the appellants stood as sureties for theaccused in s.c.no.655/2021 by executing a bond for rs.50,000/- each. it is also not in dispute that the accused failed to appear at the court below and non bailable warrant was issued against him. the mere failure on the part of the accused to appear at the court below on the date of hearing would result in automatic forfeiture of the bond. hence, the court below was absolutely justified in initiating proceedings under section 446 of cr.p.c and treating the bond executed by the appellants as forfeited.5. the court below imposed the entire bond amount aspenalty. the learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are coolies and they are unable to mobilise rs.50,000/- each imposed as penalty. considering the entirefacts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that theappellants are coolies, i am of the view that the penalty imposed can be reduced to rs.20,000/- each. in the result, the appeal is allowed in part. the penalty -:4:- imposed vide impugned order is reduced to rs.20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand) each, which shall be paid by the appellants within one month from today, failing which legal consequences shall follow. sd/- dr. kauser edappagath judge kp true copy p.a. to judge

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 7TH MAGHA, 1943 CRL.A NO. 102 OF 2022 IN M.C. 7/2021 IN SC 655/2021 OF SPECIAL JUDGE (POCSO CASES)FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT,MANJERI APPELLANTS/COUNTER PETITIONERS: 1 MOIDEEN KUTTY, S/O KUNHIMOHAMMED, KAMMILIPARAMBIN HOUSE, THALAKKADATHOOR POST, CHERIYAMUNDAM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM -676103 2 SARFUDHEEN, S/O UNNEN, PARAPPIL HOUSE, BEERANCHIRA, KODAKKAL POST, TIRUR TALUK MALAPPURAM BY ADVS.ABDUL SHUKOOR MUNDAMBRA NABIL KHADER JOHN TONY AKKARA RAFNA RAZAK RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682031 SRI. ARAVIND V. MATHEW PP THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -:2:-

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 27th day of January, 2022 This Crl.M.C has been filed under Section 449 of Cr.P.C challenging the order passed by the Special Court for the trial of offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Manjeri in M.C.No.7/2021 in SC No.655/2021.

2. The appellants stood as sureties for the accused in S.C.No.655/2021 by executing the bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-

(Rupees fifty thousand) each. The accused failed to appear at the court below and hence non bailable warrant was issued against him. Still his presence could not be secured. Hence, the court below initiated proceedings under Section 446 of Cr.P.C

against the appellants/counter petitioners.       Even though notice
was issued to the appellants, they did not appear.         Hence, the
court below forfeited the bond.         The entire bond amount of

Rs.50,000/- each was imposed as penalty as per the impugned order. The said order is under challenge in this appeal.

3. I have heard Sri. Abdul Shukoor M., the learned -:3:- counsel for the appellants and Sri. Aravind V. Mathew, the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. Admittedly, the appellants stood as sureties for the

accused in S.C.No.655/2021 by executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- each. It is also not in dispute that the accused failed to appear at the court below and non bailable warrant was issued against him. The mere failure on the part of the accused to appear at the court below on the date of hearing would result in automatic forfeiture of the bond. Hence, the court below was absolutely justified in initiating proceedings under Section 446 of Cr.P.C and treating the bond executed by the appellants as forfeited.

5. The court below imposed the entire bond amount as

penalty. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are coolies and they are unable to mobilise Rs.50,000/- each imposed as penalty. Considering the entire

facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the

appellants are coolies, I am of the view that the penalty imposed can be reduced to Rs.20,000/- each. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The penalty -:4:- imposed vide impugned order is reduced to Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) each, which shall be paid by the appellants within one month from today, failing which legal consequences shall follow. Sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE kp True copy P.A. To Judge

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2022 Same Parties Moideen Kutty vs State of Kerala Same Judge Honourable Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath