The High Court reduced the penalty on sureties from Rs. 15,000 to Rs. 7,500 each due to their poverty, allowing the criminal appeal in part under Section 446 Cr.P.C. for failure of an accused to appear.
The penalty imposed on the appellants is reduced to Rs. 7,500 each, payable within one month.
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 K.ABRAHAM MATHEW
FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1940
CRL.A.No. 873 of 2018
IN MC 11/2017 of SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA DATED 27-09-2017
APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONERS
BY ADV.SRI.K.N.RADHAKRISHNAN(THIRUVALLA)
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
R BY SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.ALEX M. THOMBRA
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
K. ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.
Crl. Appeal No. 873 of 2018
Dated this the 13th day of July, 2018
J U D G M E N T
The first appellant and one Gopinathan Unnithan, whose wife is the second appellant, were sureties of one of the accused in SC No. 94 of 2011, which was pending before the Assistant Sessions Judge, Mavelikkara. On the failure of the accused to appear in the court, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge recorded forfeiture of the bond and initiated proceedings against the first appellant and the husband of the second appellant. The court registered MC No. 11 of 2017 under Section 446 of the Cr.P.C. In response to the notice, the first appellant and Gopinathan Unnithan appeared before the court. But, they failed to show cause why they should not be ordered to pay penalty. So, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge directed them to pay Rs.15,000/- each as penalty. Its correctness is questioned in this appeal.
..2..
Crl. Appeal No. 873 of 2018
people and some leniency may be shown. The order of the trial court itself shows that the sureties were poor people. Having regard to this fact, I am inclined to reduce the penalty to Rs.7,500/- (Rupees seven thousand and five hundred only) each.
Crl. Appeal No. 873 of 2018
..3..
In the result, this Crl. Appeal is allowed in part. The amount the first appellant and the husband of the second appellant are directed to pay as penalty is reduced to Rs.7,500/- (Rupees seven thousand and five hundred only) each, which shall be paid by them within one month from today.
Sd/-
K. ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE
bka/13.07.2018
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the penalty imposed on the sureties for the failure of the accused to appear should be reduced on account of their poverty.
Whether the trial court erred in ordering the sureties to pay a penalty of Rs. 15,000/- each.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
RADHAMONI
CHELLAMMA
STATE OF KERALA
K. ABRAHAM MATHEW
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
