Partly allowed

Kochucherukkan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Jul 2016CRL.A/536/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala reduced the penalty imposed on a surety after his principal accused was acquitted. The court set aside the original higher penalty and ordered a deposit of Rs. 5,000 instead, considering the lenient view warranted by the acquittal.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order imposing Rs. 25,000 penalty set aside; petitioner directed to deposit Rs. 5,000 within three weeks.

Kochucherukkan Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2016/24TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

CRL.A.No. 536 of 2016 ()

¶6

SC.847/2005 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT(ABKARI CASES), KOTTARAKKARA.

¶7

CRIME NO.166/2003 OF KOTTARAKKARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM.

¶8

APPELLANT/COUNTER PETITIONER (CP3)/SURETY:

¶9

KOCHUCHERUKKAN, AGED 67 YEARS, S/O.GOVINDAN, KAITHAKODU VEEDU, INCHAKKADU MURI, MYLOM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

mbr/

¶16

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, V., J.

¶17

Crl.A. No.536 of 2016

¶18

-----------------------------------------Dated this the 15^th day of July, 2016

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

~~~~~~~~

¶21

1.Aggrieved by the order dated 14.1.2015 in M.C.No.31 of

¶22

2014 in S.C.No.847 of 2005 of the Additional Sessions Judge (Abkari Cases), Kottarakkara, the appellant has come up in appeal. The appellant along with one Anilkumar had stood as surety for the accused. On his failure to comply with the condition in the bond , the same was forfeited. Consequently proceedings under Section 446 of Code of Criminal Procedure was initiated and on the failure of the sureties to produce the accused or to show cause why penalty should not be imposed, the impugned order was passed whereby each of the sureties

¶23

Crl.A.No.536 of 2016

¶24

-2-

¶25

was directed to pay a penalty of Rs.25,000/- each.

¶26

2.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶27

3.It is submitted by the learned counsel that the penalty imposed against the appellant is on the higher side. It is also submitted that the accused has since been acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge as per judgment dated 12.5.2016 in S.C.No.847 of 2005. A copy of the judgment is handed over by the learned counsel. On these grounds, it is submitted that a lenient view be taken.

¶28

4.Taking note of the fact that the accused had subsequently surrendered and acquitted, it is only just and proper that a lenient view be taken in the matter. After having bestowed my anxious consideration on the various aspects, it is felt that the penalty imposed against the appellant is on the higher side. The imposition of penalty in the order dated 14.1.2015 is set aside and instead, the

¶29

Crl.A.No.536 of 2016

¶30

-3-

¶31

appellant is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/(Rupees five thousand only) within a period of three weeks from today.

¶32

Appeal is disposed of as above.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, V. JUDGE

¶35

Ps/16/7/16

Kochucherukkan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kochucherukkan 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saj Vs State of Kerala

Minu Antony Vs State of Kerala

Dineshan.K.K Vs State of Kerala

Santhoshkumar Vs State of Kerala

Ummer Farooque Vs State of Kerala

Reji @ Viswan Vs State of Kerala