Partly allowed

T.Abdusalam v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Feb 2009Crl.Rev.Pet/226/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition addressed the penalty imposed on sureties for non-appearance of an accused under Section 446 Cr.P.C. The court, noting the petitioners' impecunious status and lack of involvement in the abscondance, reduced the penalty amount and disposed of the matter.

What did the court decide?

The penalty imposed was reduced to Rs.10,000 each to be deposited within one month.

T.Abdusalam Vs State of Kerala — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 13TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 24TH MAGHA 1930

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 226 of 2009()

¶6

¶7

CRA NO.127/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE M.C.NO.14/2006 IN S.T.NO.199/2000 OF C.J.M, KOZHIKODE

¶8

REVN. PETITIONER(S):

¶9

¶10

T.ABDUSALAM, S/O. ABDULLA, MALIYAKKEL THEKKETHODI, CHERUVADI, KODIYATHUR VILLAGE.

¶11

P. ABOOBACKER, S/O. MOIDEEN, PONNAMPURATH, KAYLAM, PERUVAYAL VILLAGE.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.R.SUDHISH

¶13

RESPONDENT(S):

¶14

¶15

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶16

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.PUZHAKKARA MOHAMMED

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

¶19

= = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.226 of 2009

¶20

= == = = = = = = = = = == Dated: 13.02.2009

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The petitioners, who were the sureties for the accused in S.T.No.199 of 2000 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Kozhikode were proceeded against under Section 446 Cr.P.C consequent on the non appearance of the accused in the above case. The bond amount was Rs.25,000/- each. To the show cause notice issued under Form 48 of the II Schedule of Cr.P.C the petitioners had no valid explanation to offer. The learned Magistrate imposed the bond amount as penalty. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court the revision petitioners preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court, Kozhikode which was filed out of time. Since their petition to condone the delay was dismissed, the appeal was also consequently dismissed. Hence this Revision.

¶23

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the petitioners are impecunious persons who were not privy to the abscondance of

¶24

Crl.R.P.No.226 of 2009

¶25

-:2:-

¶26

the accused, I am inclined to reduce the penalty to Rs.10,000/(Rupees ten thousand only). The petitioners shall deposit the reduced penalty within one month from today, failing which proceedings shall be initiated against them for realisation of the same.

¶27

This Crl.R.P.is disposed of as above.

¶28

V.Ramkumar, Judge.

¶29

T.Abdusalam v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Abdusalam v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kumaran Vs State of Kerala

Rajeev Vs State of Kerala and Another

Kurian Chandy,Aged 72 Years Vs Santhoshkumar & Another

Sebastian.T Vs Abdul Gafoor.M

Maniyappan Vs Pooram Kuries and Loans (P) Ltd.

Muhammed Molla Vs Usman