Appeal against conviction of surety bond penalty. High Court held maintenance of court proceedings against sureties were unnecessary and redundant, allowing appeal and setting aside the penalty order.
Impugned order set aside; Maintenance of Court proceedings against appellant closed.
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
WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/1ST ASWINA, 1937
CRL.A.No. 814 of 2015 ()
AGAINST THE ORDER IN MC 55/2015 OF THE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DATED 08-06-2015
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN Crl.MC 90/2015 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 08-01-2015
CRIME NO. 1011/2009 OF THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA
APPELLANT(S)/CP 1-3:
1. ABRAHAM CHACKO, CHUNKATHIL VEETTIL, ERUVALLIPRA MURI, THIRUVALLA.
2. K.E.JOSEPH, KUNNEL VEETTIL, PERUMTHURUTHY MURI, KAVUMBHAGOM VILLAGE.
3. LILLY JOSEPH KUNNEL VEETTIL, PERUMTHURUTHY MURI KAVUMBHAGOM VILLAGE.
BY ADVS.SRI.T.P.PRADEEP SRI.P.K.SATHEESH KUMAR
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.ABHIJITH LESLIE.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-09-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.A.No. 814 of 2015 ()
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS
| ANNEXURE | A TRUE COPY OF THE HOSPITAL LUCKNOW |
MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM THE BASE DATED 24.10.2014. |
|---|---|---|
| ANNEXURE | B TRUE COPY OF THE |
ABSENT APPLICATION DATED 20.10.2014. |
| ANNEXURE | C TRUE COPY OF THE CRL.M.P.NO.3526/ |
ORDER DATED 20.10.2014 IN 2014 |
| ANNEXURE | D TRUE COPY OF THE NO.90/2015 |
JUDGMENT DATED 08.01.2015 IN CRL.M.C. |
| ANNEXURE | E TRUE COPY OF THE |
PROCEEDINGS IN S.C.NO.533/2010 |
| ANNEXURE | F TRUE COPY OF THE |
ABSENT APPLICATION ON 08.06.2015 |
| ANNEXURE | G CERTIFIED COPY O PATHANAMTHITTA, S.C.NO.533/10. |
F THE ORDER OF THE SESSIONS COURT, DATED 08.06.2015 IN M.C.NO.55/2015 IN |
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P. A. TO JUDGE
Pn
SUNIL THOMAS, J.
Crl. Appeal No. 814 of 2015
Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2015
J U D G M E N T
The appellants are the sureties in S.C. No.533/2010, who challenge the order dated 08.06.2015 in M.C. No.55/2015.
Crl. Appeal No.814 of 2015
2
suspended with permission to surrender before the trial Court and to seek fresh bail. Pursuant to that order, the accused appeared, the case was advanced to 17.01.2015 and fresh bail was taken. The learned Sessions Judge granted bail with a rider that the accused must appear before the Court on all posting dates. Thereafter the case was adjourned to 20.03.2015, on which day M.C. was ordered to be registered against sureties on the ground that no satisfactory reason was advanced. On 8.6.2015 by the impugned order, held that the accused and the sureties did not appear in spite of notice on the previous posting dates. It was further noted that, on that day, there was no appearance for the 1st appellant and vakalath was filed on behalf of surety Nos.2 & 3. The Court held that, no sufficient reason was shown by the sureties and hence imposed a penalty of 10,000/- each without₹ granting any remission. This order is under challenge in this appeal.
as sureties and had executed a bond inter alia undertaking to ensure the presence of the accused on all posting dates. It is
3
Crl. Appeal No.814 of 2015
pertinent to note that, the 2nd accused remained absent on 20.10.2014, whereupon the M.C. proceedings were initiated. In Crl.M.C.90/2015, this Court by its order had indicated that, the absence of the 2nd accused was not consistent. This is also seen from the proceedings sheet produced as Annexure E, which shows that, on almost all posting dates, both the accused were present and whenever there was absence of one of the accused, application was filed for their absence. It is also pertinent to note that, all the proceedings were formal since the charge had not yet been framed. In the above circumstances, this Court had held that the absence was neither wilful nor consistent.
4
Crl. Appeal No.814 of 2015
absent. This is factually incorrect as evident from Annexure E, which shows that, on 07.02.2015, the Judge was on other duty and the case was adjourned by notification. Thereafter, on the next posting date namely 20.03.2015, it is specifically recorded that old sureties were present. On that day, on a reasoning that, no satisfactory reason was advanced, M.C. proceedings were ordered to be registered against them. On 08.06.2015, vakalath was filed on behalf of accused Nos.2&3 though the 1st appellant remained absent on that day. The impugned order does not disclose whether any explanation was given by them, atleast through the counsel. The Court has held that, there was no other option but to impose the entire bond amount as penalty and proceeded to impose the penalty.
Crl. Appeal No.814 of 2015
5
granting any remission. The impugned order is not legally sustainable and is liable to be set aside.
In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. M.C. proceedings as against the appellant shall stand closed.
Sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE.
Pn
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Maintenance of Court proceedings against the appellants as sureties were unnecessary and redundant given the earlier High Court observation on the consistency of the accused's absence.
Whether the Sessions Court was correct in imposing the penalty without granting remission to the sureties.
Whether the impugned order imposing penalty on sureties is legally sustainable in view of the subsequent appearance of the accused and prior High Court direction.
ABRAHAM CHACKO
K.E. JOSEPH
LILLY JOSEPH
STATE OF KERALA
SUNIL THOMAS
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
