Yesudasan Vs. State of Kerala - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1009526
CourtKerala High Court
Decided OnDec-20-2012
JudgeHONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN
AppellantYesudasan
RespondentState of Kerala
Excerpt:
in the high court of kerala at ernakulam present: the honourable mr.justice s.siri jagan thursday, the 20th day of december 2012 29th agrahayana 193 crl.rev.pet.no. 2504 of 2012 () ------------------------------- cra.1/2012 of addl. district court (adhoc), kollam mc.123/2003 of c.j.m.,kollam revision petitioner/appellant/2nd counter petitioner: ------------------------------------------------------ yesudasan,, aged 7 years s/o late joseph, manjinezhathu tharayil veedu sakthijulangara cherry, maruthadi p.o. kollam. by advs.sri.arun.b.varghese smt.r.seema resondent/respondent/complainant: -------------------------------------- state of kerala, represented by public prosecutor high court of kerala, ernakulam. r adv. smt. seena ramakrishnan - by public prosecutor this criminal revision petition having come up for admission on 20-12-2012, the court on the same day passed the following: acd crl.rev.pet.no. 2504 of 2012 () appendix petitioner's annexures: annex.a1: copy of notice dated 17 8/2012 issued by the office of the additional district and sessions judge (adhoc) iii kollam. annex aii: copy of the order dated 18 12/12 in crl. r.p.no.2476/12. true copy pa to judge. acd s. siri jagan, j.------------------------------------------- crl.r.p. no.2504 of 2012 ---------------------------------------------- dated this the 20th day of december, 2012 order the petitioner is one of the sureties for granting bail to the accused in c.c.no. 643/2000 before the chief judicial magistrate's court, kollam. since the petitioner could not ensure the presence of the accused when the case was taken up, the munsiff registered m.c.no.123/2003 for imposing penalty on the sureties. the chief judicial magistrate imposed penalty of rs.50,000/- on the sureties. the petitioner filed criminal appeal no.1/2012 before the additional district and sessions judge (adhoc)iii, kollam against that order, which was dismissed by the additional district and sessions judge. the petitioner is challenging the judgments of the courts below.2. i have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.3. the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that subsequently in the main case, the accused was acquitted on 29.11.2012. he also submits that when the main case ended in cr.r.p.no.2504/12 2 acquittal of the accused, it is not fair or reasonable for the court below to impose penalty on the sureties, insofar as the very purpose of bail bond is to see that the accused does not escape the prosecution proceedings.4. i have heard the learned public prosecutor also.5. i am not satisfied that the petitioner should be absolved of all liability simply because, subsequently, the accused was acquitted. if that is done, the very purpose of a bail bond would be defeated. but, in view of the fact that the accused was subsequently acquitted, i am inclined to take a lenient view in the matter of fixation of the amount of penalty.6. accordingly, the penalty imposed on the petitioner by the courts below is reduced to rs.25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand only) instead of rs.50,000/-. the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already deposited rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand only). if that is correct, the said amount shall be given due credit for. the cr.r.p. is disposed of as above. s. siri jagan, judge acd cr.r.p.no.2504/12 3 cr.r.p.no.2504/12 4
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012 29TH AGRAHAYANA 193 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2504 of 2012 () ------------------------------- CRA.1/2012 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC), KOLLAM MC.123/2003 of C.J.M.,KOLLAM REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/2ND COUNTER PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------------ YESUDASAN,, AGED 7 YEARS S/O LATE JOSEPH, MANJINEZHATHU THARAYIL VEEDU SAKTHIJULANGARA CHERRY, MARUTHADI P.O. KOLLAM. BY ADVS.SRI.ARUN.B.VARGHESE SMT.R.SEEMA RESONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R ADV. SMT. SEENA RAMAKRISHNAN - BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: acd Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2504 of 2012 () APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEX.A1: COPY OF NOTICE DATED 17 8/2012 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (ADHOC) III KOLLAM. ANNEX AII: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18 12/12 IN CRL. R.P.NO.2476/12. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. acd S. SIRI JAGAN, J.

------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P. No.2504 of 2012 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of December, 2012 ORDER The petitioner is one of the sureties for granting bail to the accused in C.C.No. 643/2000 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Kollam. Since the petitioner could not ensure the presence of the accused when the case was taken up, the Munsiff registered M.C.No.123/2003 for imposing penalty on the sureties. The Chief Judicial Magistrate imposed penalty of Rs.50,000/- on the sureties. The petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No.1/2012 before the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Adhoc)III, Kollam against that order, which was dismissed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge. The petitioner is challenging the judgments of the courts below.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that subsequently in the main case, the accused was acquitted on 29.11.2012. He also submits that when the main case ended in Cr.R.P.No.2504/12 2 acquittal of the accused, it is not fair or reasonable for the court below to impose penalty on the sureties, insofar as the very purpose of bail bond is to see that the accused does not escape the prosecution proceedings.

4. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor also.

5. I am not satisfied that the petitioner should be absolved of all liability simply because, subsequently, the accused was acquitted. If that is done, the very purpose of a bail bond would be defeated. But, in view of the fact that the accused was subsequently acquitted, I am inclined to take a lenient view in the matter of fixation of the amount of penalty.

6. Accordingly, the penalty imposed on the petitioner by the courts below is reduced to Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) instead of Rs.50,000/-. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already deposited Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only). If that is correct, the said amount shall be given due credit for. The Cr.R.P. is disposed of as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd Cr.R.P.No.2504/12 3 Cr.R.P.No.2504/12 4