The High Court allowed an appeal challenging a Sessions Court order forfeiting sureties' bonds for Rs.20,000 due to the accused's absconding. The Court interfered given subsequent proof that the accused was arrested and granted bail.
The impugned order directing payment of penalty and forfeiture of bond is set aside.
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 ALEXANDER THOMAS
TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2014/11TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936
CRL.A.No. 580 of 2011 ( )
AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRMC 1217/2010 IN S.C NO.45/2009 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC - I), THALASSERY DATED 27-12-2010 APPELLANT(S):
1. P.RAMESHAN, S/O.DAMODARAN, PAYATTYAL HOUSE, KAYARALAM AMSOM, MAYYIL.
2. K.P.KHADEEJA, W/O.KALATHAN,
NADUKKEPURAYIL HOUSE, KAYARALAM AMSOM, MAYYIL.
BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:
---------------------------
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.R.REMA
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-12-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
=========================
Crl.Appeal No.580 of 2011
============================ Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2014
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed under Section 449 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to impugn the order dated 27.12.2010 of the Sessions Court, Thalassery, whereby the appellants have been directed to pay a penalty amount of Rs.10,000/- each. The appellants herein stood as sureties of the accused in Sessions Case No.45 of 2009 and the accused had secured bail on executing bond for Rs.25,000/- each. As the accused absconded violating the bail conditions, the appellants/sureties were served with notice by the court below requiring them to cause production of the accused and as they failed to produce the accused, the bond executed by the appellants was forfeited to Governement and they were served with show cause notice requiring them to show cause why the bond amount shall not be forfeited to Government. Later, the case was called on 27.11.2010 before the court below and as the appellants could not appear before the court on that day, the court below passed the impugned order directing to pay penalty of
Crl.Appeal No.580 of 2011
2
Rs.20,000/- each. It is this order under challenge in the present appeal.
Crl.Appeal No.580 of 2011
3
there will be stay of the operation of the impugned order herein.
Crl.Appeal stands allowed as indicated above.
Sd/- ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE
vdv
//True Copy//
P.A to Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned order directing payment of bond forfeiture penalty to sureties can be allowed and set aside in view of the subsequent arrest and bail of the principal accused.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
P.RAMESHAN
K.P.KHADEEJA
STATE OF KERALA
ALEXANDER THOMAS
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
