Partly allowed

Muhammed E.K v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Sept 2012CRL.A/855/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court examined a criminal appeal against an order penalizing sureties for failing to produce an accused who absconded abroad. The court upheld the liability under Section 446 Cr.P.C. but reduced the penalty from Rs. 25,000 to Rs. 12,500 per appellant and adjusted the deposit already made.

What did the court decide?

The penalty amount fixed by the lower court is modified to Rs. 12,500 per appellant; the deposit already made is adjusted; coercive steps against appellants are cancelled.

Muhammed E.K Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | 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 6TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/15TH BHADRA 1934

¶5

CRL.A.No. 855 of 2012 ()

¶6

MC.NO.23/2012 IN SC.843/2011 OF III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE.

¶7

APPELLANTS/COUNTER PETITIONERS:

¶8

1. MUHAMMED E.K., ILLAKUNNUMMAL HOUSE, KEDAVOOR AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶9

2. ABOO, PARAYARUKOTTUMMAL, PERINGOTTU HOUSE, RAROTH AMSOM, KEDAVOOR DESOM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN.

¶11

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

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

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.LALIZA T.Y.

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

rs.

¶16

V.K.MOHANAN, J.

¶17

Crl.A.No.855 of 2012

¶18

Dated this the 06^th day of September, 2012

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The appellants are the sureties for A6 who is one of the accused in S.C.No.843 of 2011 on the file of the court of the Sessions Judge, Kozhikode District. The challenge in this appeal, preferred under Section 449 of Cr.P.C., is against the order dated 04/06/2012 in M.C.No.23 of 2012 of the learned Sessions Judge of the trial court issued under Section 446 of Cr.P.C. imposed a penalty of `25,000/- each on the appellant.

¶21

The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants were not in a position to produce the accused for whom they stood as sureties as the said accused had gone abroad connected with his employment. Therefore the counsel submits that there was no negligence on the part of the appellant in producing the accused and therefore the order issued by

¶22

Crl.A.No.855/2012

¶23

: 2 :

¶24

the learned Judge of the trial court is liable to be set aside. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that the accused will appear before the trial court without any delay and therefore a lenient view may be taken in the matter.

¶25

I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the order impugned in this appeal. From the submissions of the learned counsel it appears that the accused for whom the appellants stood as sureties alleged to have involved serious offences like under Sections 307 and 308 of I.P.C. Because of the absence of the sixth accused the trial could not be proceeded further. The appellants have no case that the proceeding of the learned Judge is in violation of any provisions of the law and hence the order is irregular or illegal. Being the sureties for the sixth accused, the appellants are contractually obliged to produce the accused as and when required but in the present case they miserably failed to discharge the said obligations. Therefore I find no irregularity or illegality

¶26

Crl.A.No.855/2012

¶27

: 3 :

¶28

with the order impugned and fixing the liability against the appellants under Section 446 of Cr.P.C.

¶29

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellants happened to be the sureties for A6 as they are the neighbours of A6. But against their expectation the sixth accused jumped over the bail condition and gone abroad and as such they are at present unable to produce the 6^th accused. Therefore counsel submits that a lenient view may be taken. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case and in the light of the above submission of the learned counsel, according to me, while confirming the liability of the appellants under Section 446 of Cr.P.C. I am of the view that the penalty amount fixed by the court below can be modified and reduced into 12,500/-, which will be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, in modification of order dated 25/06/2012 each of the appellants is directed to pay a penalty of 12,500/- under Section 446 of Cr.P.C.

¶30

Crl.A.No.855/2012

¶31

: 4 :

¶32

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in terms of the order passed by this Court on 06/07/2012 in Crl.M.Appln.No.5188 of 2012 each of the appellant has already deposited a sum of .12,500/- as evidenced by the receipt issued from the court below which has been produced along with memo dated 09/08/2012 and the said amount may be ordered to be adjusted against the revised penalty amount. I find no reason to reject the above request. Accordingly there will be a direction to the trial court that 12,500/- deposited by each of the appellant in terms of the above order of this Court as evidenced by receipt issued from the Sessions Court shall be adjusted towards the penalty amount as revised and fixed by this Court. As the appellant has already deposited the revised penalty amount, coercive steps, if any, pending against the petitioners/appellants shall stand cancelled. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

¶33

V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE

¶34

skj

Muhammed E.K v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed E.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

Sivan,S/O.Velyaudhan Vs State of Kerala

Npr Finance Ltd. Vs Bindu.K.S

S.Jaganathan Pillai Vs State of Kerala

Santhosh Vs Sasi

Dr.K.Hari Vs Ramesh K.V.

Viswanathan Vs Chandra Das