Partly allowed

Sudevan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Feb 2016CRL.A/192/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Appeal concerns the forfeiture of the appellant's bail bond as the second surety due to the accused's absconding. The lower court imposed a penalty of ₹25,000, but the High Court, considering the appellant's medical unfitness and inability to produce the accused, reduced the penalty to ₹15,000.

What did the court decide?

The penalty imposed by the lower court is reduced from ₹25,000 to ₹15,000. The reduced penalty is recoverable as fine under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Sudevan Vs State of Kerala — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/27TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

CRL.A.No. 192 of 2016

¶6

CRIMINAL M.C.NO.4 OF 2015 IN S.C.NO.1997 OF 2008 OF THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT-VII, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/2ND COUNTER PETITIONER/SURETY NO.2 OF THE ACCUSED :

¶8

SUDEVAN, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.CHITTUNNY, VILAYIL VEEDU, VELLAMKUDI, THUMBODE, KALLARA VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.R.B.RAJESH

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT :

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 31.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Msd.

¶15

CRL.A.No. 192 of 2016

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :

¶18

ANNEXURE 1: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT ALONG WITH MEDICAL CERTIFICATE FILED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE LOWER COURT DATED 01.10.2015.

¶19

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

B. KEMAL PASHA, J.

¶25

=====================

¶26

CRL. Appeal No.192 of 2016 ====================== Dated this the 16^th day of February, 2016

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

¶29

The appellant is the 2^nd surety to the accused in

¶30

Sessions Case No.1997 of 2008. The accused absconded.

¶31

Notices were issued to the sureties, thereby forfeiting their bonds. The 1^st surety is no more. The appellant could not produce the accused before the court below.

¶32

The court below, through the impugned order has imposed a penalty of ₹25,000/- on the appellant herein, with a direction to pay the amount within ten days from 18.01.2016 being the date of order.

¶33

The accused was taken on bail by the appellant and

¶34

the 1^st surety, on executing bonds for ₹25,000/- each. Even though, notice was issued to the appellant and by forfeiting

¶35

CRL. Appeal No.192 of 2016

¶36

-: 2 :-

¶37

his bond, he could not produce the accused before the court below. He has not shown any cause as to why the penalty should not be imposed on him. Consequently, the court below has chosen to impose the entire bond amount as penalty.

¶38

Learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that the appellant has suffered an accident and has been laid up. A medical certificate also has been produced to show that he has been undergoing treatment for the last one year. Even now he has not been fully recovered. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court is of the view that a penalty of ₹15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) will meet the ends of justice in this case and therefore, the penalty imposed by the court below can be reduced to a penalty of ₹15,000/(Rupees fifteen thousand only).

¶39

In the result, this Crl.Appeal is allowed in part and the impugned order is modified by reducing the penalty to

¶40

CRL. Appeal No.192 of 2016

¶41

-: 3 :-

¶42

₹15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only). The penalty shall be recovered as if it were fine imposed under the Code. If

¶43

the penalty is not paid or recovered within 2 months from

¶44

today, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment in Civil Jail for one month.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

B. KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE.

¶47

DSV/16/2/16

¶48

// True Copy //

¶49

P.A. To Judge

Sudevan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudevan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Parasuram Vs B.Chandrasekharan Unnithan

Binu Vs State of Kerala

Sunil Kumar K K Vs State of Kerala

Binosh Philip George Vs State of Kerala

Shajil Vs the State of Kerala

Reshmi Pramod Vs State of Kerala