The High Court allowed the criminal appeal in part, reducing the forfeiture penalty imposed on sureties from ₿15,000 to ₹10,000 each due to their financial inability, while granting a deadline for payment.
Penalty reduced to ₹10,000 per appellant; one month time granted for payment; one month civil jail in case of non-payment.
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 B.KEMAL PASHA
WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/14TH MAGHA, 1937
CRL.A.No. 137 of 2016 ()
M.C. NO.4/2015 IN SC. NO.24/2015 OF II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, THODUPUZHA.
APPELLANT/COUNTER PETITIONERS/SURETIES:
1. MAHARAJEN, S/O. VELU,
2. SULOCHANA, W/O. MAHARAJEN, P.F. NO.4578, NETTIMEDU DIVISION, MATTUPETTY ESTATE, KDH VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK.
BY ADV. SRI.P.M.JOHNY.
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.P. MAYA.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
rs.
B. KEMAL PASHA, J.
Crl. Appeal No.137 of 2016
Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2016
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Heard learned counsel for the appellants.
23.12.2015 passed by the II Additional Sessions Court, Thodupuzha in MC No.4/2015 in SC No.24/2015. The appellants were sureties of the accused and they took the accused on bail on executing bond for ₹25,000/- each. The accused absconded. Notices were served on the appellants thereby forfeiting their bonds. The appellants could not produce the accused before the court below. The court
Crl.A.137/2016
: 2 :
below has chosen to impose a penalty of ₹15,000/- on each of the appellants through the impugned order.
out that the appellants are poor labourers and they may not be able to raise this much amount. It is also pointed out that the offence allegedly committed by the accused would have fallen under Section 63 of the Abkari Act as the case was for mere possession of excess quantity. That is not a matter of concern at present. The accused is still absconding.
Crl.A.137/2016
: 3 :
In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed in part, thereby reducing the amount of penalty imposed by the
court below to `10,000/-. In case the penalty is not paid or could not be recovered, such appellant/appellants shall undergo imprisonment in civil jail for one month. The appellants are given a month's time from today for paying the penalty.
Sd/- (B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE)
aks/03/02
// True Copy //
PA to Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the penalty imposed on sureties for forfeiture of bonds can be reduced due to financial backwardness.
Maharajen, S/o. Velu
Sulochana, W/o. Maharajen
State of Kerala
B. Kemal Pasha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
