Revisio petitioners were sureties whose bond was forfeited due to non-appearance of the accused, who was later acquitted. The High Court allowed the petition partly and reduced the penalty from Rs.5,000 to Rs.1,000 per person.
Penalty imposed on revision petitioners reduced to Rs.1,000/- each.
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 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 4TH PHALGUNA, 1939
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1692 of 2006
CRL.A.NO.504/2004 of I ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR, DATED 13-10-2005
C.C.NO.229/2001 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, WADAKKANCHERRY
REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/SURETIES OF THE ACCUSED:
BY ADV.SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
RESPONDENT:
THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.E.C.BINEESH
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-022018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bb
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.
----------------------------------------Crl.R.P.No.1692 of 2006
------------------------------------------Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2018
O R D E R
The revision petitioners were the sureties for the release of the accused in C.C.No.229 of 2001 on the files of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Wadakkanchery, on bail. Since the accused did not appear before the trial court, the court issued notice to the revision petitioners on being satisfied that the bail bond had been forfeited. The revision petitioners received the notice. However, they did not submit any explanation. In the said circumstances, the learned Magistrate directed the revision petitioners to pay a penalty of Rs.5,000/- each. In the appeal, the order passed by the learned Magistrate was confirmed, against which, this revision petition has been filed.
Crl.R.P.No.1692 of 2006 : 2 :
of 2001 was acquitted on 29.1.2003 by the trial court as the complainant had withdrawn the complaint. Admittedly, the aforesaid order was passed subsequent to the initiation of proceedings by the trial court. Therefore, the said fact can be taken into consideration for the purpose of reducing the penalty. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the fact that the accused, for whom, the revision petitioners were the sureties, had been acquitted by the trial court, I am of the view that the penalty imposed by the court below can be modified and reduced to secure the ends of justice. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, this Crl.R.P. stands allowed in part and the penalty imposed by the court below stands modified and reduced to the extent that the revision petitioners need to pay only a penalty of Rs.1,000/- each under Section 446(3) of Cr.P.C.
Sd/-
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR JUDGE.
Bb/24/2/2018
[True copy]
P.A to Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the penalty imposed on bondsmen for non-appearance of the accused should be reduced considering the accused was acquited.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Radhakrishnan
Kesavan
The State of Kerala
B.Sudheendra Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
