This appeal challenges a conviction order forfeiting the surety bond and imposing a penalty on surety Rajendran and Maniyan for the absence of an accused under the Abkari Act. The High Court remitted the penalty, directing sureties to pay Rs. 7,500 each.
Each appellant is directed to remit Rs. 7,500; remission granted for the balance.
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 SUNIL THOMAS
MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/23RD BHADRA, 1937
CRL.A.No. 579 of 2011 ( )
AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRL.M.C.23/10 IN SC 259/2010 of ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, KOTTAYAM DATED 03-01-2011
APPELLANTS/SURETIES:
1. RAJENDRAN, S/O.KOCHU KUNJU, IKKATTUPARAMBIL, MUTTAPPALLY, ERUMELY SOUTH VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM.
2. MANIYAN, S/O.KELAN, ANIYARAYIL, PAMBAVALLEY KARA, ERUMELY, SOUTH VILLAGE KOTTAYAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.C.S.MANILAL SRI.S.NIDHEESH
RESPONDENTS/STATE:
THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: SRI ABHIJITH LESLIE
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-09-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
SUNIL THOMAS, J.
==============================
Crl.A.No.579 of 2011
==============================
Dated this the 14th day of September, 2015
JUDGMENT
This appeal arises from the order of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Adhoc)-II, Kottayam in S.C.No.259 of 2010.
Crl.Appeal.579/11
2
bond undertaking to ensure the presence of the accused in all posting dates. It is further undertaken that in case of default, the bond shall be forfeited and the penalty be paid. There is no dispute to the fact that the accused was absent and sureties could not procure his presence also. It is also on record that in spite of notice served on the sureties, they did not appear and show any cause as to why the penalty shall not be imposed. In the above circumstances, learned Additional Sessions Judge was well within his authority to impose a penalty, subject to the bond amount, which he found to be appropriate.
3
Crl.Appeal.579/11
the petitioners to ensure the presence of the accused. Hence, I feel that a penalty of Rs.7,500/- each payable by each of the petitioner will serve the interest of justice.
In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. In modification of the impugned order, each of the appellant is directed to remit a sum of Rs.7,500/- (Rupees Seven Thousand and Five Hundred Only) each. Remission is granted regarding the balance amount.
Sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS Judge
Sbna
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court has the power to remit part of the forfeited bond amount imposed on sureties.
What amount of penalty is just and appropriate given the efforts taken by the sureties to ensure the accused's presence.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rajendran
Maniyan
State of Kerala
Sunil Thomas
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
