Dismissed

Rajeev v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Nov 2013CRL.A/1236/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses criminal appeals filed by sureties appealing against an order imposing a penalty of Rs.10,000 each for failure to produce the accused. The court held that subsequent appearance of the accused or acquittal does not negate the surties

What did the court decide?

The appeals were dismissed. The penalty imposed on the appellants-sureties under Section 446 of Cr.P.C. was upheld.

Rajeev Vs State of Kerala — Kerala HC (2013) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/16TH KARTHIKA, 1935

¶5

CRL.A.No. 1236 of 2005 ( )

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT M.C.NO.32/2004 IN SC 440/1999 of ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-1), KOLLAM DATED 26-08-2004

¶7

APPELLANTS/COUNTER PETITIONERS::

¶8

1. RAJEEV, S/O. ASHOKAN, VAYALIL PUTHEN VEEDU, AKKONAM CHERI MAYYANADU VILLAGE.

¶9

2. LAILA, D/O. VASANTHI, ALUVILA VEEDU, THEKKUMBHAGOMCHERI, ERAVIPURAM.

¶10

3. MADHU, S/O. GOPALAN, KOTTAYKKAVAYAL VEEDU, MAYYANADU CHERI MAYYANADU VILLAGE.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN

¶12

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT::

¶13

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

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.N.SURESH

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-11-2013 ALONG WITH CRL.A.No. 1237 of 2005 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

MNS

¶17

V.K.MOHANAN, J.

¶18

Crl.A.Nos.1236 & 1237 of 2005

¶19

Dated this the 7^th day of November, 2013

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

As the above two appeals are filed challenging the very same impugned order and as the parties are more or less same and considering the similarities in the facts and question of law involved the above appeals are heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment.

¶22

As I indicated earlier the challenge in both the above appeals are against the order dated 26.08.2004 in M.C.No.32/2004 in S.C.No.440/1999 of the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge (Adhoc)-1, Kollam, which is an order issued under Section 446 of Cr.P.C. The first appellant in both the above appeals, are respectively accused Nos.2 and 1 in the above sessions case and the appellants 2 and 3 are their sureties. As per the impugned order, the learned Sessions Judge imposed a penalty of Rs.10,000/- on each of the appellant under Section 446 of Cr.P.C., as the accused/appellants failed to appear before the trial court and their sureties the appellants 2 and 3 in each appeal failed to produce the accused.

¶23

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that

¶24

¶25

Crl.A.Nos.1236 & 1237 of 2005

¶26

after the impugned order the accused Nos.1 and 2, who are the first appellant in the above appeals appeared before the court below and they were released on bail and they have faced the trial as well and, therefore, the order impugned are liable to be set aside. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that as this Court has already acquitted the accused, the order impugned in these appeals are unsustainable.

¶27

1. I am unable to sustain the above contention. As I

¶28

indicated earlier the first appellant in the above appeals are respectively accused Nos.2 and 1 in S.C.No.440 /99, who failed to appear before the trial court when there presence were required. The sureties for the above accused who are appellants No.2 and 3 in both the above appeals were also failed to produce the accused and no convincing and acceptable explanation is offered. Being the sureties for the accused they are contractually obliged to produce the accused for whom they stood as sureties. As and when the sureties failed to discharge that part of their contractual obligation they are liable to be proceeded under Section 446 of Cr.P.C. The accused/appellants has also not offered any

¶29

¶30

Crl.A.Nos.1236 & 1237 of 2005

¶31

explanation for their failure to appear before the court. The order of acquittal in favour of the accused either at the trial stage or in appeal, is not a ground to wash away their contractual liability and obligations. So, according to me, the learned Judge is perfectly correct and legal in his finding as per the impugned order and imposing penalty of Rs.10,000/on each of the appellant.

¶32

In the result, the above appeals are devoid of any merit and accordingly, the same are dismissed.

¶33

V.K.MOHANAN JUDGE

¶34

mns

Rajeev v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeev 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

Raghavan Vs the S.I. of Police

Babu Vs the State of Kerala

Surendran Vs State of Kerala

Kuttappan Vs State of Kerala

Sasidharan Vs State of Kerala,Rep.by Public Prosecutor

Sajeev Vs State of Kerala