Partly allowed

Jumailabeevi v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Feb 2013CRL.A/127/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed the appeal in part, modifying the penalty imposed under Section 446 CrPC from Rs.50,000 to Rs.35,000. The Court directed that the amount already deposited by the appellant be adjusted against this reduced liability and cancelled pending coercive steps.

What did the court decide?

Penalty reduced to Rs.35,000; prior deposit of Rs.35,000 adjusted; coercive steps cancelled.

Jumailabeevi Vs State of Kerala — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/29TH MAGHA 1934

¶5

CRL.A.No. 127 of 2013 ()

¶6

(AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.3.2012 IN MC.NO.18/2012 IN SC.NO.232/2009 OF THE ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (ADHOC) II, KOLLAM)

¶7

APPELLANT)/APPELLANT/3RD COUNTER PETITIONER:-

¶8

JUMAILABEEVI

¶9

D/O. AMINABEEVI, CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU KOTTAMKARA MURI, KOTTANKARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR)

¶11

SRI.M.J.ABRAHAM

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/ACCUSED/2ND COUNTER PETITIONER:-

¶13

1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶14

2. KABEER RAMZYMANAZ MANZIL, PUNTHALATHAZHAM, PEROOR CHERRY KOTTAMKARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM.

¶15

3. SIRAJUDEEN KALUUMMOOTTIL, KILIKOLLOOR CHERRY, KILIKOLLOOR VILLAGE KOLLAM.

¶16

R1 BY ADV. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SHEEBA.

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-02-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

V.K.MOHANAN, J.

¶19

= = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶20

Crl.Appeal No.127 of 2013.

¶21

= = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶22

Dated this the 18^th February, 2013.

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

The appellant herein is the third counter-petitioner in MC.No.18/2012 in SC.No.232/2009 of the Court of the Addl.District and Sessions Judge, (Adhoc-II), Kollam and he is challenging the order dated 30.3.2012 in the above case,

¶25

by which the learned Judge imposed a penalty of Rs.50,000/- on the appellant and other counter-petitioners under Section 446 of the Crl.P.C.

¶26

I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

¶27

Counsel for the appellant submitted that the attempt made by the appellant to secure the presence of the first accused for whom he stood as one of the sureties resulted in vein since the accused went abroad. It is also the submission of the counsel for the appellant that the

¶28

Crl.Appeal No.127/2013.

¶29

¶30

learned Judge of the Magistrate's Court imposed the penalty of which the amount is equivalent to the bond amount and the said approach is highly arbitrary and illegal. Therefore, the counsel submits that the order imposing penalty for the appellant under Sec.446 Crl.P.C. is highly arbitrary and illegal and liable to be set aside.

¶31

I am unable to sustain the above contention. From the impugned order it appears that the offences involved in the Sessions case are under Section 143, 147, 148, 326 and 308 r/w. Sec.149 IPC. The appellant stood as one of the sureties for the first accused who faced the above offences. The appellant is duty bound to produce the accused as and when required the trial court. But he miserably failed to discharge the above obligation. In the absence of any allegation that the court below has violated the procedural requirement, or any non compliance of statutory mandate, I find no reason to interfere with the findings of the court below and the liability fixed thereon

¶32

¶33

Crl.Appeal No.127/2013.

¶34

against the appellant.

¶35

However, it is relevant to note that the court below has imposed a penalty of Rs.50,000/- which is equivalent to the bond amount which according to me, is not proper and correct. Therefore, while approving the liability of the appellant under Sec.446 of Crl.P.C., the interest of justice demand modification with respect to the penalty amount. According to me, an amount of Rs.35,000/will be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the appellant is directed to pay a penalty of Rs.35,000/under Sec.446 of the Crl.P.C.

¶36

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as per the directions issued by this Court on 30.10.2012 in Crl.MA.No.6280/2012, the appellant has already remitted a sum of Rs.35,000/- on 9.10.2012 as evident by the receipt that issued from the trial court which produced before this Court, though belatedly, by memo dated 20.10.2012 and the said amount may be ordered to be

¶37

Crl.Appeal No.127/2013.

¶38

adjusted as penalty amount modified and imposed. According to me, the said submission requires positive consideration.

¶39

In the result, there will be a direction to the court below that an amount of Rs.35,000/- already deposited by the appellant vide order dated 3.10.2012 and evident from the receipt issued by the trial court on 9.10.2012, is directed to be adjusted against the penalty amount now modified and fixed by this Court. Since the amount has already deposited towards the modified penalty amount, the coercive steps, if any, pending against the appellant stands cancelled.

¶40

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

¶41

V.K.MOHANAN,

¶42

Kvs/-

Jumailabeevi v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jumailabeevi 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

State Bank of India, Kommady Alappuzha Vs R. Bhuvanedran & Another

Samkutty Abraham Vs Labour India Publications Ltd. & Others

M.v.Nalinakshan Vs E.N.Vivek and Another

Manzoor Illahi M Vs Krishnakumar G

A N Rajan Vs State of Kerala

Ulahannan John Vs Yeshodha.K