This appeal by sureties challenges a lower court order imposing a penalty for failure to produce the convicted accused. The High Court quashed the penalty, finding no wilful laches, as the accused was simultaneously serving sentence in another court in a different case.
Order imposing penalty on appellants set aside and impugned order quashed.
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 RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/13TH KARTHIKA, 1938
CRL.A.No. 1113 of 2016 ()
AGAINST THE ORDER IN MC. NO.1536/2016 IN SC. NO.473/2008 OF IV ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR DATED 12/08/2016.
APPELLANTS/COUNTER PETITIONERS:
1.
THANKAMMA, AGED 80 YEARS, W/O. SUBRAMANIAN, CHEMBARATHIPARAMBIL (H), PADAVARAD DESOM, OLLUR P.O., THRISSUR, NOW RESIDING AT VALLACHIRA, CHERPU, THRISSUR.
2. MARY, AGED 48 YEARS, W/O.ANTO, PADAMADAN (H), PADAVARAD DESOM, OLLUR P.O., THRISSUR.
BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT.
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
rs.
CRL.A.No. 1113 of 2016
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-
ANNEXURE A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20/05/2016 IN CRL.A. NO.2244/2009. ANNEXURE B COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE 1ST ACCUSED. ANNEXURE C COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20/10/2016 IN MP. NO.4404/2016 IN M.C. NO.1536/2016 IN SC. NO.473/2008 BEFORE THE IVTH ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR.
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:- NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
rs.
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J
----------------------------------------
Crl.Appeal No.1113 of 2016
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of November, 2016
JUDGMENT
Crl.Appeal 1113/2016 2
4.When the accused failed to appear before the court below, after the dismissal of the appeal, notice was issued to the appellants herein, who are the sureties. Though it is contended that the appellants herein did not receive any notice from court, it is borne out from the records that for the failure of the appellants to show cause why penalty should not be imposed against them and for the failure to produce the accused in terms of the bond, a penalty of Rs.25,000/- each was imposed on them, as per order dated 12.8.2016.
6.When warrant was ordered as against the accused, learned counsel appearing for the accused filed Annexure-B application before the court below informing the court that the accused was undergoing sentence in Viyoor Central Jail in connection with the aforesaid case
Crl.Appeal 1113/2016 3
and sought for issuance of production warrant for securing the presence of the accused in court. In terms of the said request, production warrant was issued and the accused was proceeded before the IV Additional Session Judge, Thrissur. However, in the meantime the penalty had already been imposed as against the appellants herein.
9.It is borne out from the order of the court below that the order imposing penalty was passed on 12.8.2015, for the failure of the appellants herein in producing the accused in pursuance to the directions issued. However, it is borne out that the accused was undergoing sentence in S.C.No.742 of 2008. In the aforesaid circumstances, the appellants could not have been indicted for non production
Crl.Appeal 1113/2016 4
of the accused before the court below. Though the learned Sessions Judge was satisfied with the explanation offered by the appellants, the learned Sessions Judge took the view that having passed an order imposing penalty, the court was powerless to set aside the order. It does not appear to me that there was any wilful laches on the part of the appellants herein.
Criminal Appeal will stand allowed.
Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE
vps
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a High Court can quash a penalty imposed on sureties for failure to produce the accused who was serving sentence in another case due to no wilful laches.
Whether the Court is powerless to set aside a penalty order once passed despite laches being absent due to the accused being in jail elsewhere.
Whether the penalty imposed on sureties under the bond should be quashed where the accused was undergoing sentence in a different case.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Thankamma
Mary
State of Kerala
Raja Vijayaraghavan.V
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
