The Court allowed the appeal preferred by sureties against an order imposing a penalty for failure to produce the accused. The penalty was reduced to ₹10,000 each, time was granted for payment, and the distress warrant was kept in abeyance.
The penalty was reduced to ₹10,000 each. One month time granted for remission. Distress warrant kept in abeyance for one month.
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. 919 of 2015 ()
AGAINST THE ORDER IN M.C.NO.07/2015 IN S.C.NO.532/2010 OF THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-III, MAVELIKKARA DATED 23.07.2015.
APPELLANT(S):
1. KUNJI, AGED 75 YEARS, W/O.NEELAKANTAN, ATHUKKATTU THEKKETHIL, MANKUZHY MURI, BHARANICKAVU VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK.
2. AJAYAN, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.BHASKARAN, CHOONATTU VADAKKATHIL, MANKUZHY MURI, BHARANICKAVU VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA.
BY ADVS.SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR SMT.A.SALINI LAL
RESPONDENT(S):
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.ABHIJITH LESLIE.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-09-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Pn
SUNIL THOMAS, J.
Crl. Appeal No. 919 of 2015
Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2015
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is preferred by the sureties in S.C.No.532/2010 of the Additional Sessions Court - III, Mavelikkara for offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 324, 452, 427 and 308 of IPC. It is an admitted fact that, the appellants stood as sureties inter alia, undertaking to ensure the presence of the accused on all posting dates and in case of default to pay a penalty of 25,000/-. It is further admitted that, the accused₹ remained absent and thereafter the Court below initiated M.C. proceedings against the accused and the sureties. They could not produce the accused. Hence, the Court below by the impugned order, imposed a penalty of ₹20,000/- each after granting remission of 5,000/- each. Distress warrant was therefore₹ issued. Challenging the said order, they have preferred this appeal.
Crl. Appeal No. 919 of 2015
2
for the appellants contended that, the accused is a relative of the appellants and in spite of the earnest efforts, they could not procure the presence of the accused. It was further contended that, the appellants were poor and unable to pay the huge amount. Since, the contentions were on the basis of material on record, it is felt that appeal can be disposed of at the admission stage itself. Heard both sides.
In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is modified to the extent that, a penalty of 10,000/- each is₹ imposed on each of the appellant. They are granted one months time to remit the amount. Distress warrant will be kept in abeyance for a period of one month from today. In case, the
Crl. Appeal No. 919 of 2015
3
appellants deposit the amount within the above period, the entire proceedings shall be closed. In the event of non-payment of the amount as above, distress warrant can be issued. Remission is granted regarding the balance amount.
SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE.
Pn
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the penalty imposed on sureties for default in producing the accused deserves remission given their financial status.
Whether the distress warrant against the sureties is maintainable in the absence of a mutiny charge.
Whether the penalty order can be remitted or modified without impugning the conviction of the accused.
Kunji
Ajayan
State of Kerala
Sunil Thomas
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
