Partly allowed

Pradeepan M.K v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Sept 2012CRL.A/2284/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala confirmed the liability of sureties under Section 446 Cr.P.C. despite the accused's subsequent surrender and acquittal. However, it modified the penalty from Rs.25,000 to Rs.5,000 per surety as appropriate given the ends of justice. The deposited amount was adjusted, and coercive steps were cancelled.

What did the court decide?

Penalty reduced to Rs.5,000; deposit adjusted; coercive steps cancelled.

Pradeepan M.K Vs State of Kerala — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/22ND BHADRA 1934

¶5

CRL.A.No. 2284 of 2010 ( )

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN SC.37/2010 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC)-II, KOTTAYAM, DTD.30.6.2010

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANT/COUNTER PETITIONER:

¶8

PRADEEPAN.M.K., MAKOOTTATHIL HOUSE, BRAHMAMANGALAM.P.O., KOTTAYAM.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT & STATE:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. (CRIME NO.24/2008 OF VAIKOM EXCISE RANGE, KOTTAYAM)

¶12

BY ADV.SMT.LALIZA T.Y., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-09-2012, ALONG WITH CRA. 866/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

ami/

¶15

V.K.MOHANAN, J.

¶16

Crl.A.Nos.2284 of 2010 and 866 of 2011

¶17

Dated this the 13^th day of September, 2012.

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

The above two appeals are filed under section 449 of Cr.P.C. by different sureties in S.C.No.37 of 2010 of the court of Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-II), Kottayam, who stood as sureties for the sole accused in the sessions case, challenging the order dated 30.6.2010 in M.C.No.15 of 2010 in the above sessions case. As per the above impugned order, the trial court has imposed a penalty of `25,000/- each on the appellants under section 446 of Cr.P.C.

¶20

Learned counsel for the appellants in the above cases submitted that, by Annexure I judgment dated 29.2.2012, the learned Sessions Judge has already acquitted the accused who faced the prosecution for the offence under section 8(1) and (2) of the Abkari Act for

¶21

¶22

Crl.A.Nos.2284 of 2010 and 866 of 2011

¶23

whom the appellants stood as sureties and therefore the above order may be set aside or showing leniency, the penalty amount may be reduced.

¶24

The appellants being the sureties were bound to produce the accused as and when required by the court below. But in the present case, they failed to discharge their statutory obligation and therefore the learned Judge of the trial court issued the impugned order. The subsequent appearance of the accused, for whom the appellants stood as sureties, or the acquittal of the accused in the trial court are not a ground to set aside the order passed by the trial court under section 446 of Cr.P.C. The appellant being the sureties contractually obliged to produce the accused but they failed. In the absence of any challenge against the order impugned on the ground of any procedural or legal infirmities or irregularities, the order impugned cannot be set aside. Therefore, liability fixed upon the appellants under section 446 of Cr.P.C. as per the impugned order is

¶25

¶26

Crl.A.Nos.2284 of 2010 and 866 of 2011

¶27

confirmed.

¶28

But it is pertinent to note that by the impugned order, the learned Judge imposed a penalty of 25,000/- on each of the appellants, which is equivalent to the bond amount which according to me is not proper. It is also a fact that the accused was subsequently surrendered before the court and he is acquitted for the offence for which he faced trial. Under the above circumstances, according to me, the penalty amount fixed by the trial court requires modification and an amount of 5,000/- will be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, in modification of the impugned order, while confirming the liability of the appellant under section 446 of Cr.P.C., each of the appellants is directed to pay a penalty of `5,000/- under section 446 of Cr.P.C.

¶29

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as ordered by this Court on 5.9.2012 in the above two appeals, each of the appellants have already deposited `5,000/- as

¶30

¶31

Crl.A.Nos.2284 of 2010 and 866 of 2011

¶32

evidenced by receipt dated 12.9.2012 issued from the sessions court which produced alongwith the memo dated 13.9.2012 and therefore the above amount may be ordered to adjust towards the modified amount. According to me, the above request requires positive consideration. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the trial court that the amount of `5,000/- deposited by each of the appellants, as evidenced by the receipt issued from the sessions court, shall be adjusted against the amount of penalty now modified and fixed by this Court. As the appellants have already deposited the modified penalty amount, coercive steps if any pending against them stand cancelled.

¶33

Sd/- V.K.MOHANAN, Judge

¶34

ami/

¶35

//True copy//

¶36

P.A. to Judge

Pradeepan M.K v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeepan M.K 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

John Vs T.v.Soman

M/S.Auto Distributors Vs M/S.Auto Land

U.Narayana Shetty Vs Shahul Hameed

A.Sathyaprakash Vs K.Prabhakaran

P.Vijayalakshmi Vs Pushpalatha & Anr.

Vinod,S/O.Narayanan @ KUNJAN,C.NO.9895,CENTRAL Jail,Kannur Vs State of Kerala