The Kerala High Court adjusted the penalty imposed under section 446 of Cr.P.C. on sureties who failed to produce an accused. Although affirming their liability, the court reduced the fine due to the accused's subsequent surrender and appearance in trial.
Liability as sureties confirmed; penalty reduced to `15,000/-; previous deposit directed to be adjusted.
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
MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH 2013/13TH PHALGUNA 1934
CRL.A.No. 251 of 2013 ()
SC.309/2009 of ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE (ADHOC)-II, KOTTAYAM DATED 20-05-2010
APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANTS/COUNTER PETITIONERS:
1. JAYALAL S/O. THANKAPPAN, EANTHANAPLAVIL VEEDU, HILLTOP BHAGOM UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, KATTAPPANA VILLAGE.
2. VIJAYAKUMAR,
BY ADV. SRI.ABHILASH S.FRANCIS
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER:
THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV.SMT.V.H.JASMINE
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-03-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ami/
V.K.MOHANAN, J.
Crl.A.No.251 of 2013
Dated this the 4th day of March, 2013.
J U D G M E N T
The sureties for the 5th accused in S.C.No.309 of 2009 of the court of Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc-II), Kottayam, are the appellants as they are aggrieved by the order dated 20.5.2010 in M.C.No.6 of 2010 in the above sessions case by which, each of the appellants is directed to pay penalty of `20,000/- under section 446 of Cr.P.C.
2
Crl.A.No.251 of 2013
facing the trial. Therefore, it is the submission of the counsel that, as the accused has surrendered and facing the trial, the impugned order is liable to be set aside, as the same is unjust and unreasonable.
Though it is a fact that, the accused, for whom the appellants stood as sureties, has appeared before the court below and is facing the trial, is not a sufficient ground to relieve the appellants from the liability under section 446 of Cr.P.C. Being the sureties for the accused, it was incumbent upon the appellants to produce the accused as and when demanded by the court below. In the present case, admittedly the appellants have failed to produce the accused. If that be so, I find no reason to interfere with the findings of the court below and fixing the liability upon the appellants under section 446 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the above finding is confirmed. But considering the fact that, subsequent to the impugned order, the accused for whom the appellants stood as sureties, has appeared before the
3
Crl.A.No.251 of 2013
court below and now facing the trial, according to me, the penalty amount fixed by the court below can be modified. Thus, according to me, a sum of 15,000/- will be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, in modification of the impugned order, while confirming the liability of the appellants under section 446 of Cr.P.C., the penalty amount is reduced and fixed as 15,000/- and accordingly each of the appellants is directed to pay a penalty of `15,000/under section 446 of Cr.P.C.
4
Crl.A.No.251 of 2013
In the result, there will be a direction to the court below that an amount of `15,000/- deposited by each of the appellants, as evidenced by the receipt dated 11.2.2013 issued from the said court, be adjusted towards the modified penalty amount fixed by this Court. As the appellants have already deposited the modified penalty amount, coercive steps if any initiated against the appellants stand cancelled.
Criminal appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/- V.K.MOHANAN, Judge
ami/
//True copy//
P.A. to Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the liability of the appellants as sureties under section 446 of Cr.P.C. can be reconsidered when the accused surrenders.
Whether the penalty amount fixed by the lower court should be modified in light of the accused's surrender and appearance.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
JAYALAL S/O. THANKAPPAN
VIJAYAKUMAR S/O. MADHAVAN PRABHAKARAN
THE STATE OF KERALA
V.K.MOHANAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
