Partly allowed

Santha v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Feb 2012Crl.Rev.Pet/352/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision petition, the Kerala High Court reduced the penalty imposed on sureties to Rs. 10,000 each. The court held that although the sureties failed to appear due to the accused's absence for foreign employment, the appellate court should have shown leniency and heard the appeal on merits rather than dismissing it on technical grounds.

What did the court decide?

Penalty of Rs. 25,000 each is reduced to Rs. 10,000 each, with simple imprisonment of two months in failure to pay.

Santha Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/25TH MAGHA 1933

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 352 of 2012 ()

¶6

CRMP.324/2011 IN UN NUMBERED CRL. APPEAL OF SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM MC.5/2008 IN S.C. NO.1217/2003 OF PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM.

¶7

REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/COUNTER PETITIONERS:

¶8

1. SANTHA, D/O.KUNJILI, THUNDIL THARAYIL VEEDU, MUZHANGODI CHERRI, KALLELIBHAGOM VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK.

¶9

2. SAROJINI, D/O.KUNKILI, THUNDIL THARAYIL VEEDU, MUZHANGODI CHERRI, KALLELIBHAGOM VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.K. SIJU,

¶11

SMT.BINDU GEORGE.

¶12

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

¶13

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SEENA RAMAKRISHNAN.

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-02-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

rs.

¶17

P.BHAVADASAN, J.

¶18

---------------------------------------------------Crl.RP No.352 of 2012 ---------------------------------------------------Dated this the 14^th day of February 2012

¶19

Order

¶20

The petitioners stood as sureties for the accused in SC No.1217/03 before the Sessions Court, Kollam, for the offences punishable under Sections 8(2) r/w 8(1) and 55(a) of the Abkari Act when the accused in the said case was released on bail. Thereafter, the accused continued to appear before the trial court till 19.8.2008. But, when the case was posted for S.313 examination, he was not present as he had gone abroad on getting employment and so, proceedings under Section 446 of Cr.P.C. were initiated against the sureties. The sureties failed to show sufficient cause for non-production of the accused or imposition of penalty. The trial court, therefore, imposed a penalty of Rs.25,000/- on each of the petitioners.

¶21

The petitioners carried the matter in appeal. Since there was delay in filing the appeal, they also filed a petition to condone the delay. The lower appellate court, after an elaborate consideration of the matter, dismissed

¶22

Crl.RP 352/12

¶23

¶24

the petition and consequently, the appeal and hence the revision.

¶25

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner pointed out that the lower appellate court ought to have condoned the delay and heard the matter on merits and ought not to have dismissed the delay condonation petition on technical grounds. They prayed for some leniency to be shown in the matter.

¶26

That the petitioners stood as sureties for the accused in SC No.1217/03 is not a matter in dispute. It is also not disputed that when the accused was called for Section 313 examination, he was not present. It was under these circumstances that the trial court imposed penalty on the revision petitioners. In all fairness, the lower appellate court ought to have considered the petition for condonation of delay and considered the appeal on merits, in the interest of justice. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is felt that a lenient view may be taken in the matter.

¶27

Crl.RP 352/12

¶28

¶29

In the result, the penalty imposed on the revision

¶30

petitioners is reduced to Rs.10,000/- each, on failure of payment of which, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for two months.

¶31

P.Bhavadasan, Judge

¶32

sta

¶33

Crl.RP 352/12 4

Santha v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santha 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

P.M.Moideen Vs E.K.Ebrahim

Bhaskaran Vs State of Kerala

Kunhiraman Vs Mammu

Janardhanan Vs State of Kerala

T.Suresh Vs State of Kerala

Benny @ Agusthy Thomas Vs M.K. Varghese