Partly allowed

Thankappan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Feb 2017CRL.A/96/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal appeal involved appellants who were sureties for an accused under section 8 of the Kerala Abkari Act. The lower court imposed a penalty and default sentence for the accused's absence. The high court allowed the appeal in part, reducing the penalty from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 2,000 per appellant and granting one month's time to pay.

What did the court decide?

Penalty reduced to Rs. 2,000 per appellant; default sentence modified to SI for 15 days; one month's time for payment granted; remission ordered for balance amount.

Thankappan Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/26TH MAGHA, 1938

¶5

CRL.A.No. 96 of 2017 ()

¶6

APPELLANT(S)/CR.PETITIONERS/SURETIES OF ACCUSED:

¶7

1. THANKAPPAN,

¶8

AGED 76, S/O.KUNJILAN, VELIPARAMBIL VEEDU, WARD-IX, THAKAZHY PANCHAYATH, THAKAZHY VILLAGE, KUNNUMMA MURI, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-688562

¶9

2. KOCHUMOL @ KUNJUMOL VARGHESE, AGED 52, D/O.CHINNAMMA VARGHESE, RAJENDRA BHAVANAM,WARD-IX, THAKAZHY PANCHAYATH, THAKAZHY VILLAGE, KUNNUMMA MURI, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-688562

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE SRI.BIJO THOMAS GEORGE SMT.NICEY A. MENON

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER /STATE:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA,

¶13

REPRESENTED BY EXCISE INSPECTOR, KUTTANADU EXCISE RANGE, BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM

¶14

R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.T.R.RANJIT

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 1502-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

¶17

¶18

Crl.Appeal No. 96 of 2017

¶19

¶20

Dated this the 15^th day of February, 2017

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

The appellants were the sureties of the accused in SC No.170/2001 of the Additional Sessions Court,Alappuzha, for offences punishable under section 8 of the Kerala Abkari Act. The appellants had executed a bond undertaking to ensure the presence of the accused on all posting dates and in case of default, to forfeit the bond amount and to suffer the penalty fixed by the court below. It appears that, the accused absconded and the MC proceedings were initiated against the appellants. Ultimately, by the impugned order dated 1/12/2016,penalty at the rate of Rs.10,000/- was ordered to be imposed on each of the appellant with a default sentence of two months each. The distress warrant was also ordered. This is under challenge in this appeal.

¶23

Learned counsel for the appellants contended that, in fact the appellants appeared before the court below and apprised the court below that the accused was thereafter tried, convicted and sentenced to undergo punishment. It was challenged by the accused in Crl.Appeal No.1727/2003 before this Court. This court allowed the appeal in part reducing the term of imprisonment to nine months. That was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme

¶24

Crl.Appeal No.96/2017 2

¶25

Court through the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. The matter is now reported to be pending before the Supreme Court as evidenced by Annexure A1 and A2. It was contended by the appellants that, in spite of the above facts being brought to the notice of the court below, the court proceeded to impose penalty at the rate of Rs.10,000/- each.

¶26

3.The appellants have admittedly executed the bail bond ensuring the presence of the accused on all posting dates and to suffer the penalty in case of default. Admittedly, the accused absconded and thereafter MC proceedings were initiated. In the above background, the lower court cannot be found fault with for having imposed penalty. However, the court below ought to have taken note of the fact that, pursuant to the notice issued in MC proceedings, the appellants had appeared before the court below. The fact that, the accused had apprehended and had faced the trial seems to be borne by the records. Having considered these facts, I feel that the court below should have taken a lenient view to meet the ends of justice. This is essentially so, since the MC proceedings were initiated to meet the ultimate aim of procuring the presence of the accused rather than penalising the appellants.

¶27

Having considered the above facts, I am inclined to hold that sum of Rs.2000/-(Rupees Two Thousand only) payable by each of the appellant will serve the interest of justice.

¶28

In the result, the Appeal is allowed in part. The amount of

¶29

¶30

Crl.Appeal No.96/2017

¶31

penalty ordered to be paid is slashed down to Rs.2,000/-(Rupees Two thousand only) payable by each of the appellant failing which they shall undergo SI for 15 days. The appellants are granted one month's time to pay the amount. Remission is granted regarding the balance amount. If any amount is in deposit pursuant to the order of the court below, credit will be given to that amount.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

SUNIL THOMAS Judge

¶34

dpk

¶35

/true copy/ PS to Judge.

¶36

Crl.Appeal No.96/2017 4

Thankappan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thankappan 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

Arif Vs State of Kerala

Sheeja Vs State of Kerala

B.Abdulla Vs State of Kerala

Jnanesh Bangera Vs the State of Kerala

Shibu Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Pradeep Vs State of Kerala