Sureties faced penalty for accused absconding. Court found no evidence of aiding absconding and reduced penalty from Rs.25,000 to Rs.10,000 per appellant, allowing remission of the balance with one-month time to pay.
Penalty reduced to Rs.10,000 each; remission granted for remaining balance; one month time granted to remit amount.
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 SUNIL THOMAS
TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/25TH MAGHA, 1938
CRL.A.No. 452 of 2016 (A)
AGAINST THE ORDER IN MC.NO.2/2016 IN SC.NO.359/2013 OF III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLLAM DATED 11.03.2016
APPELLANT(S)/-:
1. SHEEJA
2. ABIDA BEEVI
D/O.MUHAMMED KUNJU, CHERUTHITTA KIZHAKKATHIL, KADATHUR MURI, THAZHAVA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW
RESPONDENT(S):
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
BY SRI.M.R.DHANIL, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-02-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
R.AV
SUNIL THOMAS, J.
Crl.Appeal No.452 of 2016
Dated this the 14th day of February, 2017
JUDGMENT
~~~~~~~~
The appellants herein were the sureties of the accused in SC.No.359/2013. They had executed a bail bond undertaking to ensure the presence of the accused on all posting dates and in case of default to forfeit the bond and to pay a penalty as fixed by the court below subject to maximum of Rs.25,000/-. The accused absconded and MC proceedings were initiated against the sureties. The sureties appeared before the court below and sought time to produce the accused. It was rejected by the court below and by order dated 11.03.2016 the court below imposed a penalty of Rs.25,000/- each without granting any remission. This is under challenge in this proceedings.
Crl.Appeal No.452 of 2016 2
presence of the accused. They had also promptly appeared before the court below and explained the circumstances and had requested for a lenient view. In spite of the above, the court below did not accept their contention and imposed penalty, which was the maximum undertaken by them.
3
Crl.Appeal No.452 of 2016
of the appellant will serve the interest of justice.
In the result, this appeal is allowed in part. While confirming the order imposing the penalty, the amount ordered to be remitted as penalty is reduced to Rs.10,000/- each payable by each of the appellant. Remission is granted regarding the remaining amount. Each of the appellant is granted one month time to remit the amount ordered. In case of default, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days.
Sd/- SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE
R.AV
//True Copy//
PA to Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the penalty imposed on sureties for non-production of the accused should be reduced given the absence of evidence of their aiding in absconding.
Whether remission of the penalty amount can be granted while maintaining the penalty order.
SHEEJA
ABIDA BEEVI
STATE OF KERALA
SUNIL THOMAS
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
