Revision petitioners were penalized for non-appearance of the principal accused on bail. Upon acquittal of the accused and withdrawal of prosecution, the High Court reduced the penalty to ensure justice.
Penalty reduced to Rs. 1,000/- each under Section 446(3) Cr.P.C.
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.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/6TH KARTHIKA, 1938
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 278 of 2010 ( )
IN CRL.A 292/2008 of D.C. & SESIONS & MACT,KALPETTA CC 37/2005 of J.M.F.C.-II, MANANTHAVADY
REVISION PETITIONER/REVISION PETITIONER::
BY ADV. SMT.CELINE JOSEPH
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT::
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. SRI RAMESH CHAND
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.
Crl.R.P. No.278 of 2010
O R D E R
The revision petitioners executed bond on 24.4.2007
for the release of the first accused in C.C. No.37 of 2005 on
the files of the court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class - II, Mananthavady on bail. However, thereafter, the
first accused in the case did not appear before the court as directed by the court. In the said circumstances, the court issued notice to the revision petitioners. The revision petitioners received the notice. However, they did not submit any explanation to the show cause notice issued
from the court. In the said circumstances, the learned
Crl.R.P.278/2010
: 2 :
Magistrate directed each of the revision petitioners to pay a penalty of Rs.30,000/- each. In appeal, the penalty was reduced to Rs.5,000/- each.
Magistrate acquitted all the accused in C.C. No.37 of 2005 on the files of that court under Section 321(b) Cr.P.C. In view of the above reason, I am of the view that the penalty awarded by the appellate court can be further modified and reduced to secure the ends of justice and accordingly I
order so.
Crl.R.P.278/2010
: 3 :
In the result, this revision petition stands allowed in
part modifying and reducing the penalty imposed by the appellate court and remission is granted to the extent that each of the revision petitioners shall pay a penalty of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) each under Section 446(3) Cr.P.C.
If the revision petitioners had already deposited the above said amount before the Magistrate court concerned, the revision petitioners need not deposit any further amount to comply with the direction of payment of penalty in this order. If the revision petitioners had deposited any amount in excess thereof, the revision petitioners are, no doubt, entitled to get reimbursement of the excess amount from the court. Sd/-
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE
dl/.28.10..2016
// True Copy // PA to Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the penalty imposed for default in bail bond ought to be reduced.
Whether the subsequent acquittal of principal accused warrants leniency in penalty.
Whether the revision petitioners have secured the ends of justice.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kunjaisha
Moosa
State of Kerala
B. Sudheendra Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
