Allowed

Vijayan, S/O. Nanu, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Sept 2020CRL.A/1148/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed the criminal appeal by modifying a penalty of Rs.15,000 imposed on sureties under Section 446 Cr.P.C. for failing to produce the accused. The Court reduced the penalty to Rs.2,500 each and granted remission for the balance.

What did the court decide?

Penalty reduced to Rs.2,500 each with remission for the balance amount; imprisonment in civil prison for one month if amount remains unpaid after one month.

Vijayan, S/O. Nanu, Vs State of Kerala — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 26TH BHADRA, 1942

¶5

CRL.A.No.1148 OF 2005

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN M.C. NO. 2/2005 IN S.C. NO. 253/2004 DATED 15-01-2005 OF ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, ALAPPUZHA

¶7

APPELLANTS:

¶8

1 VIJAYAN, S/O. NANU, MANNAPARAMBU LAKSHOM VEEDU, NAGIARAKULANGARA MURI, CHINGOLI VILLAGE.

¶9

2 CHINNAMMA, W/O.KUNJACHAN, MANAPARAMBIL KIZHAKKETHIL, NANGUARKULANGARA MURI, CHINGOLI VILLAGE.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN

¶11

RESPONDENT:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

BY SMT. MAYA M.N., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

CRL.A.No.1148 OF 2005 2

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

This is an appeal preferred under Section 449(ii) of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short the 'Cr.P.C.'), challenging the legality and correctness of the order dated 15.01.2005 of the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Alappuzha in M.C. No. 2/2005 in S.C. No. 253/2004. Evidently, the appellants, who are the counter petitioners in the Miscellaneous Case, were the sureties of the second accused in the said Sessions Case. When the sureties failed to produce the second accused before the court at the time of trial, the court was compelled to initiate proceedings under Section 446 of the Cr.P.C., which led to the order impugned. By the order, after having satisfied that bonds executed by them were forfeited, a penalty of Rs.15,000/- each was imposed on the counter petitioners. Aggrieved by the order, now the counter petitioners have moved this appeal.

¶18

I heard counsel on both sides.

¶19

The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the second accused has already faced trial, therefore, it was not necessary to proceed with the Miscellaneous Case under Section 446 of the Cr.P.C. The learned counsel also submitted that the first

¶20

CRL.A.No.1148 OF 2005 3

¶21

appellant is the father-in-law of the second accused, after executing the bond, he has abandoned his wife, i.e., the daughter of the first appellant. She also submitted that both the appellants belong to poor strata of the society, they are kudikidappukars of the properties mentioned in the bond, that they have no other place of abode.

¶22

Whatever it may be, it is certain that the second accused was released on bail on the bond for Rs. 15,000/- each executed by the appellants before the committal court on 18.03.2004. It seems

¶23

that, when the matter was taken up by the trial court, they failed to produce him before the court at the time of trial and that made the court to take the extreme step of initiating a Miscellaneous Case against both the appellants, under Section 446 of the Cr.P.C.

¶24

Having considered the contentions across the Bar and

¶25

also after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor, I feel that valid grounds are not made out to interfere with the order in question. However, having regard to the submission that the second accused has already undergone trial and taking note of the lapse of time, interest of justice can be met by granting remission. Therefore, the penalty imposed by the court is modified and reduced to Rs.2,500/-

¶26

CRL.A.No.1148 OF 2005 4

¶27

each (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred), granting remission for the balance amount. The amount of Rs. 2,500/- each shall be paid within a period of one month from today, failing which revenue recovery proceedings shall be initiated. Even thereafter, if the amount cannot be recovered, both of them shall be liable to be imprisoned in civil prison for one month each.

¶28

This Criminal Appeal is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

K.HARIPAL

JUDGE

DCS/17.09.2020

Vijayan, S/O. Nanu, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijayan, S/O. Nanu, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chami Vs State of Kerala

Soman, S/O.Madhavan Vs State of Kerala

Dileep Vs State of Kerala

A.Nazeer Vs Girija

Narayanan Vs State of Kerala

Prakash Vs State of Kerala