Quashed

Mathew v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC27 Jul 2016Crl.MC/3006/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court set aside an order forfeiting sureties' bond for producing an accused. The court found the order deficient as no separate proceedings were initiated, grounds for forfeiture were not recorded, and no show cause notice was issued.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; matter remitted to Additional Sessions Judge to consider afresh and pass fresh orders in accordance with law.

Mathew 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JULY 2016/5TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 3006 of 2016 ()

¶6

--------------------------SC 146/2005 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT - IV, KOTTAYAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

1. MATHEW,S/O.THOMMEN, AGED 78 YEARS, PARIPPIKUNNEL HOUSE, PALA.P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 575.

¶9

2. PURUSHOTHAMAN NAIR S/O.RAMAN NAIR, AGED 70 YEARS, PARAYARU KUNNEL, PALA.P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 575.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.JAI GEORGE SMT.DAISY A.PHILIPOSE

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

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

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

Crl.MC.No. 3006 of 2016 ()

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

A1: ORDER DATED 09.05.2016 IN S.C.NO.146 OF 2005 ON THE FILES OF THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE IV, KOTTAYAM.

¶20

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE bp

¶21

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, V., J.

¶22

Crl.M.C.No.3006 of 2016

¶23

-----------------------------------------Dated this the 27^th day of July, 2016

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

~~~~~~~~

¶26

1.The petitioners herein are the sureties of the accused in

¶27

SC No 146 of 2005 of the Additional Sessions Judge IV , Kottayam . The accused was found guilty by the trial Court and the said finding was confirmed by the Appellate Court but the sentence was modified.

¶28

2.The accused is said to have challenged the concurrent findings before the Appellate Court . It is submitted that the accused is 82 years of age now and is battling cancer .

¶29

3.After confirmation of the conviction by this Court , on the failure of the accused to appear before the Court , notice was issued to the petitioners , being the sureties . They appeared and sought for time of a month to produce the accused . The case was posted to 9.5.2016 on which day

¶30

Crl.M.C.No.3006/2016 -2-

¶31

the impugned order which is produced as Annexure 1 was

¶32

passed .

¶33

4.The said order reads as follows:

¶34

“Accused absent. Sureties present, applied for time allowed. Deposit the fine within two days. Produce the accused 25.05.2016.”

¶35

5.The learned counsel submits that no separate proceeding

¶36

was initiated against the petitioners. Failure to record the grounds of proof of forfeiture of the bond is highlighted as another ground to unsettle the impugned order. It is also urged that no show cause notice as contemplated prior to ordering payment of penalty was issued to the petitioners and the order is vague as the fine amount is not even stated. The learned Counsel relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Ghulam Mehdi V State of Rajastan (AIR 1960 SC 1185 )and Thundichi and Another V State of Kerala ( 2009 (4) KLT 148 ) to buttress his contentions.

¶37

Crl.M.C.No.3006/2016 -3-

¶38

6.Heard the Public Prosecutor as well.

¶39

7.I find merit in the submission of the learned Counsel that

¶40

the impugned order fails to satisfy the statutory mandate. I am of the view that the order cannot be sustained. The

¶41

same is set aside. The matter is remitted back and the learned Additional Sessions Judge is directed to consider the matter afresh and pass fresh orders in accordance with law.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, V. JUDGE

¶44

Ps/27/7/16

Mathew v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mathew 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thonikkadan Abdul Nasar Vs the State of Kerala

Robinson Gomez @ Pradeep Vs State of Kerala

Sreejith.T Vs State of Kerala

Shagen N. Vs State of Kerala

Umesh Vs State of Kerala

Jalaludheen Vs the State of Kerala