Allowed

Abdul Rahiman v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Mar 2013CRL.A/137/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court confirmed the liability of appellants, who were sureties, under Section 446 of Cr.P.C. for failing to produce the accused. Despite confirming liability, the Court modified the penalty from ₹25,000 to ₹12,500 per appellant due to the accused's subsequent surrender and adjusted the deposited amount.

What did the court decide?

The penalty was reduced to ₹12,500 per appellant, and coercive steps were cancelled as the amount was deposited and adjusted.

Abdul Rahiman Vs State of Kerala — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF MARCH 2013/17TH PHALGUNA 1934

¶5

CRL.A.No. 137 of 2013 (B)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN M.C.No.151/2012 IN SC.194/2000 of ADDL.SESSN.COURT (ADHOC-II) KASARAGODE DATED 30/05/2012

¶7

APPELLANTS/COUNTER PETITIONERS :

¶8

ABDUL RAHIMAN, S/O. IBRAHIM, MOGRAL PUTHUR, KUDLU VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶9

BEEBINCHI,

¶10

W/O.MUHAMMED, BALOOR, PUTHUR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK & DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN

¶12

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT :

¶13

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

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.N.SURESH

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-03-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Crl.A.No.137/2013

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS

¶19

ANNEXURE A1 : COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.30/05/2012 IN M.C.No.151/2012 IN S.C.No.194/2000 OF ADDL.SESSN.COURT (AD HOC-II), KASARAGOD.

¶20

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL.

True copy

P.A. to Judge

V.K.MOHANAN, J.

Crl.A.No.137 of 2013

¶25

Dated this the 08^th day of March, 2013

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

The appellants are the sureties for the sole accused in S.C.No.194 of 2000 and in this appeal their challenge is against the order dated 30/05/2012 in M.C.No.151 of 2012 in S.C.No.194 of 2000 of the court below by which the learned Judge imposed a penalty of `25,000/- on each of the appellant under Section 446 of Cr.P.C.

¶28

The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the accused for whom the appellants stood as sureties subsequently surrendered before the court below and he is undergoing the imprisonment as modified and revised by this Court in Crl.A.No.1995 of 2003 and therefore the learned counsel submits that the order of

¶29

the trial court is liable to be interfered or in the alternative the penalty amount may be reduced.

¶30

Crl.A.No.137/2013

¶31

: 2 :

¶32

I am unable to sustain the above contention of

¶33

the learned counsel for the appellants. The appellants being the sureties for the accused, are bound to produce the accused for whom they stood as sureties as and when required by the court below. But in the present case the appellants are miserably failed in discharging their statutory obligation. Consequently, the court below proceeded to initiate proceedings against the appellants and finally issued the impugned order fixing liability upon the appellants under Section 446 of Cr.P.C. According to me, the subsequent surrender of the accused is not a ground to interfere with the findings of the court below. Accordingly, the impugned order is confirmed to the extent fixing the liability upon the appellants under Section 446 of Cr.P.C.

¶34

However, considering the fact that subsequent to the impugned order the accused surrendered before the court below and he is undergoing the modified sentence as ordered by this Court in Crl.A.No.1995 of

¶35

Crl.A.No.137/2013

¶36

: 3 :

¶37

2003, while confirming the liability of the appellants, according to me, the penalty amount requires modification especially when the court below imposed a penalty of 25,000/- which is equivalent to the entire bond amount. According to me, a sum of 12,500/- will be sufficient to meet the ends of justice in the light of the facts and circumstances involved in the present case. Accordingly, while confirming the liability of the appellants under Section 446 of Cr.P.C. each of the appellant is directed to pay a penalty of `12,500/-.

¶38

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in terms of the order passed by this Court dated 11/02/2013 in Crl.M.Appln.No.910 of 2013, each of the appellant has deposited `12,500/- as evidenced by the receipt dated 19/02/2013 issued from the court below and the said amount may be ordered to be adjusted towards the penalty amount now revised and fixed by this Court. According to me, the above request requires positive consideration as the same is only just and proper.

¶39

Crl.A.No.137/2013

¶40

: 4 :

¶41

In the result, this appeal is disposed of with a direction to the court below that the amount of `12,500/deposited by each of the appellant as evidenced by Annexure AI & II produced along with Crl.M.Appln.No. 1780 of 2013 be adjusted towards the penalty amount as modified and fixed by this Court. As the appellants have already deposited the revised and modified penalty amount, the coercive steps, if any, pending against the appellants shall stand cancelled.

¶42

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

¶43

V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE

¶44

skj

¶45

True copy P.A. to Judge

Abdul Rahiman v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Rahiman 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

Sasidharan Pillai Vs State of Kerala

Ouseph Abraham Vs State of Kerala and Another

Kaisu,S/O.Abdulla Vs State of Kerala

Mohanan Vs State of Kerala

Hyrannuissa Vs State of Kerala

Shyam B.Thaivalath Vs Augustine Antony