The High Court of Kerala allowed a criminal appeal challenging a penalty imposed on sureties. The court modified the penalty amount from Rs. 25,000 to Rs. 10,000 and directed adjustment of prior deposits and cancellation of coercive steps.
Penalty reduced to Rs. 10,000 and adjusted against sum deposited earlier; coercive steps cancelled.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN
TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH 2013/14TH PHALGUNA 1934
CRL.A.No. 117 of 2013 (D)
AGAINST THE ORDER IN M.C.No.3/2012 IN SC.No.380/2010 OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT -II, MAVELIKARA
DATED 29/03/2012
APPELLANTS/COUNTER PETITIONERS:
BY ADV. SMT.S.L.SYLAJA
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.N.SURESH
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-03-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
V.K.MOHANAN, J.
Crl.A.No.117 of 2013
Dated this the 05th day of March, 2013
JUDGMENT
The appellants are the sureties for the sole accused in S.C.No.380 of 2010 and in this appeal the challenge is against the order dated 29/03/2012 in M.C.No.3 of 2012 by which the learned Judge imposed a penalty of `25,000/- on each of the appellant under Section 446 of Cr.P.C.
Crl.A.No.117/2013
: 2 :
appellants in producing the appellants and hence the order under challenge is liable to be set aside or in the alternative leniency may be shown to the appellant.
approve the same. Being the sureties, the appellants are statutorily obliged to produce the accused, as and when required by the court below. But, in the present case it appears from the impugned order that, though notice was served on the appellants, they failed to appear before the court and no explanation is offered. Therefore, according to me, the learned Judge of the trial court is fully justified in fixing the liability under Section 446 of Cr.P.C. upon the appellants. Since the accused, for whom the appellants stood as sureties, is available for trial, according to me, while confirming the liability under Section 446 of Cr.P.C. the penalty amount requires modification. According to me, in modification of the impugned order, the penalty amount can be fixed as 10,000/- in stead of 25,000/- as ordered by the court
Crl.A.No.117/2013
: 3 :
below, which will be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, each of the appellants is directed to pay a penalty of `10,000/- under Section 446 of Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, there will be a direction to the trial court that a sum of `10,000/- deposited by each of the appellants, as evidenced by the receipt dated 05/12/2012 issued from the court below which is produced as per memo dated 19/01/2013 in terms of the order dated 03/01/2013 in Crl.M.A.No.8324 of 2012, is ordered to be
Crl.A.No.117/2013
: 4 :
adjusted against the modified penalty amount. As the appellants have already deposited the modified penalty amount, coercive steps against the appellants, if any, stand cancelled.
The Criminal Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE
skj
True copy P.A. to Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the penalty imposed on sureties for failure to produce the accused is liable to be modified and adjusted.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
HYRANNUISSA
SIVARAJAN
STATE OF KERALA
V.K.MOHANAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
