Partly allowed

Antony v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Feb 2020CRL.A/145/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In bail forfeiture proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C., the trial court forfeited the bond and imposed a penalty of Rs.80,000/- along with civil imprisonment. The appellate court held that the penalty portion was excessive and reduced it to Rs.40,000/- each. The order for simultaneous imprisonment was quashed, with imprisonment allowed only if the reduced penalty remains unrecovered after recove

What did the court decide?

Penalty reduced to Rs.40,000/- each payable in three months; simultaneous civil imprisonment direction set aside, imprisonment permissible only on non-payment after recovery efforts.

Antony Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶4

MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 21ST MAGHA, 1941

¶5

CRL.A.No.145 OF 2020

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN MC NO.14/2019 IN SC 787/2018 DATED 11-07-2019 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT-II, NORTH PARAVUR

¶7

CRIME NO.805/2018 OF Kalamassery Police Station, Ernakulam

¶8

APPELLANTS:

¶9

1 ANTONY AGED 59 YEARS S/O. RAPHAEL, KARAKKAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHENNUR, KOTHADU POST, KADAMAKKUDY VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM,PIN-682 027

¶10

2 JACOB @ JOSE, AGED 54 YEARS S/O. ANTONY, THAIPPARAMBIL HOUSE, THUNDATHUMKADAVU, VARAPPUZHA VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM,PIN-683 517

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.K.C.ELDHO SRI.MALLENATHAN.M. SRI.AVINASH K.KRISHNAN SMT.K.SINDHU ELIAS SMT.KRISHNA SANTHOSH SMT.HARITHA JAYAN

¶12

RESPONDENT:

¶13

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031

¶14

SRI. C.S. HRITHWIK SR PP

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CRL.A.No.145 OF 2020

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 10th day of February 2020

¶20

The appellants stood surety for one of the

¶21

accused in SC No.787/2018 on the file of the

¶22

Ist Additional Sessions Court, North Paravur,

¶23

for having allegedly committed offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii) B of the

¶24

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

¶25

The accused who was hailing from Orissa

¶26

did not appear, and consequent to that

¶27

MC No.14/2019 was registered against the

¶28

appellants under Section 446 of the Cr.P.C. The

¶29

bail bond executed by them was for Rs.1,00,000/-, and after hearing them the bail

¶30

bond was forfeited and they were directed to pay a penalty of Rs.80,000/- and the balance

¶31

¶32

CRL.A.No.145 OF 2020

¶33

amount was remitted. There was also an order to the effect that failure to realize the amount

¶34

by revenue recovery shall entail in the petitioner being detained in the civil prison for a period of two months.

¶35

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and also the learned Public

¶36

Prosecutor.

¶37

Apparently, there does not appear to be

¶38

any illegality in the order of forfeiture of bond and imposing of penalty. The only point that is to be considered whether the penalty imposed is exorbitant or not. The appellants contend that, the accused have absconded to their native place and that it is not within their power get him back.

¶39

Considering the fact that the appellants

¶40

are unable to produce the accused, the penalty

¶41

¶42

CRL.A.No.145 OF 2020

¶43

of Rs.80,000/- is reduced to Rs.40,000/- each. There is also an infirmity in the order to the effect that the imprisonment is ordered simultaneously with the order of penalty. Under as per the proviso of the Section 446(2) of the

¶44

Cr.P.C, only when the amount of penalty is not paid or could not be recovered can the surety be made liable for imprisonment in the civil prison.

¶45

Therefore, the appeal is allowed in part, and the impugned order passed by the Ist Additional Sessions Court, North Paravur, in MC No.14/2019 is modified to the extent

¶46

that the penalty shall be reduced to Rs.40,000/-(Rupees Forty thousand only) each and the said amount shall be paid within a

¶47

period of three months, failing which, the trial court is at liberty to take appropriate

¶48

CRL.A.No.145 OF 2020

¶49

¶50

steps for recovery as prescribed in the Cr.P.C including detention.

Sd/-

ASHOK MENON

JUDGE

spk

CRL.A.No.145 OF 2020

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶59

ANNEXURE-A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CENTRE POLICE STATION

¶60

ANNEXURE-A1(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT DATED 20.12.2019

¶61

ANNEXURE-A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 17.12.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANTS

¶62

ANNEXURE-A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE FEE RECEIPT DATED 24.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE BAR COUNCIL OF KERALA

¶63

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL

¶64

//TRUE COPY//

¶65

PA TO JUDGE

Antony v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Antony 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

H.K.Shamshu, Vs State of Kerala

M.R.Saneesh, Vs State of Kerala

P.M. Siyad Vs State of Kerala

Antony, Vs State of Kerala

N.Peethambara Kurup Vs Shajan

Nabeel Nashid C Vs Anirudh Keeriyott