Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 14TH ASWINA, 1944 CRL.A NO. 1006 OF 2022 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN MC 26/2019 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - V, KOTTAYAM / III ADDITIONAL MACT, KOTTAYAM APPELLANT/APPELLANT: 1 RAMANKUTTY, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.KUNJURAMAN, EDAPPARAYIL HOUSE, KISUMAM KARA, KOLLAMULA VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 686 511. 2 ANILKUMAR, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.SANKARAN, PALANILKUNNIDATHIL HOUSE KISUMAM KARA, KOLLAMULA VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 686 511. BY ADVS. S.A.ANAND SHONE GEORGE BINEESH KODIYERI NINU M.DAS RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR , HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682 031. SRI.M.P.PRASHANTH-SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Appellants are the counter petitioners in M.C.No.26 of 2019 in S.C.No.239 of 2014 on the file of the Addl.Sessions Judge-V, Kottayam. Aforesaid M.C. was registered as per Section 446 of Cr.P.C. The appellants were sureties of the accused in S.C.No.239 of 2014 of the said Court. However, the accused absconded and despite service of notice to the appellants, they could not secure the presence of the accused before the trial court. Consequently,
aforesaid proceedings were initiated against them, and it culminated in the order which is impugned in this case. As per the said order, the appellants were imposed with a penalty of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) each. These proceedings are under challenge in this Crl.Appeal.
2. Heard Sri.S.A.Anand, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri.M.P.Prasanth, learned Public Prosecutor for the State.
3. The contention put forward by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the appellants could not trace out the accused despite all earnest efforts, and there were no willful latches on their
part in producing the accused before the trial court. It is also pointed out that subsequently, in the year 2021, the accused passed away and the procedure against him now stands abated. In such circumstances, the proceedings are challenged by the appellants. It is also contended that the amount of penalty imposed is too onerous and beyond their ability, as the appellants are coolie workers.
4. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor would oppose the aforesaid contention.
5. I have gone through the records and heard the contentions of either side. As far as the challenge against the proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C is concerned, the same does
not suffer from any legal infirmity. It is evident that the appellants could not secure the presence of the accused before the court below, which amounts to a violation of the conditions of the bond executed by them. Therefore, the initiation of proceedings against the appellants is hereby confirmed. However, the fact remains that the accused is no more, and it is pointed out that the appellants are
coolie workers. Therefore, it is contended that the amount of penalty imposed upon them is on the higher side. After considering all the relevant inputs, I am of the view that some leniency can be shown in the matter of the quantum of penalty imposed upon the appellants. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to revise the penalty as Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) each.
In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed in part. Even though the initiation of proceedings in M.C.No.26 of 2019 in S.C.No.239 of 2014 by the learned Sessions Judge is confirmed, the rate of penalty stands modified as Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) each instead of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) each as already passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Appellants shall deposit the aforesaid amount within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, and in the event of failure to pay the amount, it shall be open for the learned Sessions Judge to initiate appropriate proceedings. Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE DG/7.10.22 APPENDIX OF CRL.A 1006/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure- A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12-07- 2019 IN M.C. NO. 26/2019 IN S.C. NO. JUDGE-V, KOTTAYAM