Allowed

Rajesh B.Panicker v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Feb 2013CRL.A/1380/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal by sureties against a penalty for failure to produce the accused, the High Court upheld the liability under Section 446 of Cr.P.C. but reduced the quantum from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 5,000. The Court allowed adjustment of deposits already made and ordered cancellation of coercive steps.

What did the court decide?

Penalty reduced to Rs. 5,000; prior deposits adjusted; coercive steps cancelled.

Rajesh B.Panicker Vs State of Kerala — Civil Procedure and Limitation | 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 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/22ND MAGHA 1934

¶5

CRL.A.No. 1380 of 2012 (B)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN Crl.MC.61/2011 IN S.C.No.491/2009 of ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (AD HOC) COURT-I, PATHANAMTHITTA DATED 17/12/2011

¶7

APPELLANTS:

¶8

RAJESH B.PANICKER, S/O.BHANUDASA PANICKER, CHERUKAPPURU VEEDU, PERUNNAKIZHAKKU MURI, CHANGANACHERRY.

¶9

GANGADHARAN, S/O.PADMANABHAN, CHIRAKKADAVILAYA KALARIL VEEDU, MUTHOOR, KUTTAPPUZHA.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.M.V.S.NAMBOOTHIRY

¶11

RESPONDENT:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA,

¶13

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

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR - SMT.V.H.JASMINE

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-02-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

CRL.A.No. 1380 of 2012 (B)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONERS' EXHIBIT :

¶19

ANNEXURE A-1 : COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.17/11/2011 IN CRL.M.C.No.3911/2011 OF THIS COURT.

¶20

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT : NIL.

True copy

P.A. to Judge

V.K.MOHANAN, J.

Crl.A.No.1380 of 2012

¶25

Dated this the 11^th day of February, 2013

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

This appeal under Section 449 of Cr.P.C. is filed at the instance of the sureties, who are counter petitioner Nos.1 and 2 in Crl.M.C.No.61 of 2011 in S.C.No.491 of 2009, challenging the order dated 17/12/2011 of the court of the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Ad hoc)-I, Pathanamthitta in the above proceedings, by which the learned Judge imposed a penalty of `10,000/- on each of the appellants under Section 446 of Cr.P.C.

¶28

The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently submitted that, the accused for whom the appellants stood as sureties subsequently appeared and they have been released on fresh bond executed by fresh sureties. Therefore, the order of the court below is liable to be set aside.

¶29

I am unable to sustain the above contention.

¶30

From the impugned order it appears that, though notice

¶31

Crl.A.No.1380/2012

¶32

: 2 :

¶33

was ordered against the appellants, none of them appeared and no reasonable ground is shown for not forfeiting the bond amount. If once the appellants stood as sureties for the accused, it is their bounden duty to produce the accused as and when required. But in the present case they miserably failed to discharge their statutory obligation. If that be so, in the absence of any contention against the validity of the proceedings adopted by the court below or its illegality, the appellants are bound to face the consequences under Section 446 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, in the present case the appellants miserably failed to substantiate their challenge against the impugned order and accordingly, upholding the findings of the court below and fixing the liability under Section 446 of Cr.P.C. against the appellants, I confirm the liability of the appellants under Section 446 of Cr.P.C. fixed by the court below.

¶34

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the penalty amount fixed by the court below is highly

¶35

Crl.A.No.1380/2012

¶36

: 3 :

¶37

arbitrary and illegal and the bond amount itself is fixed as the penalty amount. I find some force in the above submission. According to me, the penalty amount can be modified and a sum of 5,000/- will be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, while confirming the liability fixed in the court below under Section 446 of Cr.P.C. against the appellant, each of them are directed to pay a penalty of 5,000/-.

¶38

The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that, in terms of the order passed by this Court on 06/11/2012 in Crl.M.Appln.No.7860 of 2012 each of the appellants has deposited 5,000/- as evident by the receipt dated 14/11/2012 issued from the court below, Pathanamthitta, which has been produced along with a memo dated 16/11/2012 and the same may be adjusted towards the penalty amount fixed by this Court. According to me, it is only just and proper to allow the above request. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the trial court that an amount of 5,000/- deposited by

¶39

Crl.A.No.1380/2012

¶40

: 4 :

¶41

each of the appellants in terms of the order dated 06/11/2012 in Crl.M.Appln.No.7860 of 2012 shall be adjusted towards the penalty amount now modified and fixed by this Court. As the appellants have already deposited the modified and revised penalty amount, the coercive steps, if any, pending against the appellant shall stand cancelled.

¶42

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

¶43

V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE

¶44

skj

Rajesh B.Panicker v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh B.Panicker 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

K.B.Ralphan Vs State of Kerala

Ajaykumar @ Ajaykumar Nair Vs Baburajan &Another

T.D.Preetha Vs Sarada Sivasankaran Nair & Another

K.Venugopal Vs P.C.Ushadevi

K.P.Abdurahiman Vs State of Kerala

Somayya,S/O. Madara Vs State of Kerala