Partly allowed

C.Raveendran v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Dec 2020CRL.A/342/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala held that the lower court's order forfeiting the entire bail bond and imposing a penalty under Section 446 Cr.P.C. was illegal as it disregarded the mandatory benefit under Section 446(3) Cr.P.C. to remit part of the penalty. The order was remanded.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; matter remanded to Sessions Court to dispose of in accordance with Section 446 Cr.P.C.

C.Raveendran 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 P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942

¶5

CRL.A.No.342 OF 2020

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 807/2017 DATED 13-02-2020 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - II, MANJERI

¶7

APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶8

1 C.RAVEENDRAN AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. GOPALAN NAIR, RESIDING AT CHAKKUTH HOUSE, ESWARAMANGALAM P.O., PONNANI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT

¶9

2 RAJESH.P.T., AGED 37 YEARS S/O. KRISHNAN NAIR, RESIDING AT KADANJERI HOUSE, ESWARAMANGALAM P.O., PONNANI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH) SRI.ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH SRI.PRAJIT RATNAKARAN

¶11

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

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

¶13

SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER - SRI. CHANDRASENAN D.

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

CRL.A.No.342 OF 2020 2

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

This appeal is against the order under Section

¶18

446 Cr.P.C. imposing a penalty of Rs.25,000/(Rupees twenty five thousand only) after forfeiting the entire bail bond amount by the Counter Petitioner Nos.1 and 2. The order passed by the learned Session Judge extracted below for reference:

¶19

“Both sureties present and questioned that requested for taking leniency since accused went abroad. The above explanation is not acceptable since accused is absconding. The entire bail bond amount forfeited and imposed Rs.25,000/each as penalty and in the case of impracticability of Distress warrant both shall undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months in civil prison.”

¶20

A mere perusal of the said order would show

¶21

that it is not in accordance with the mandate under

¶22

Section 446 Cr.P.C. Section 446(3) Cr.P.C. is an

¶23

enabling provision, a benefit conferred to the

¶24

sureties. Section 446(3) extracted below for reference:

¶25

CRL.A.No.342 OF 2020 3

¶26

reasons for doing so, remit any portion of the penalty, mentioned and enforce payment in part only.”

¶27

Since it is a benefit conferred on the

¶28

surety, the provision would stand mandatory casting a duty upon the court to address the benefit before finalizing the liability under Section 446 Cr.P.C.. The said mandate is not seen followed or complied with by the learned Sessions Judge. Hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside I do so. The matter is remanded back to the Sessions Court,

¶29

Manjeri, so as to dispose of the matter in accordance with the mandate under Section 446 Cr.P.C. by providing an opportunity to the

¶30

petitioners to exhaust the benefit under sub section 3 of Section 446 Cr.P.C. The parties shall appear before the Trial Court on 12/01/2021.

¶31

The appeal is allowed in part accordingly.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN

JUDGE

msp

C.Raveendran v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Raveendran 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

Daniel Vs Shajan

Geejo Francis, Vs the State of Kerala

K.v.Gireesh Vs State of Kerala

Jamsheer, Vs State of Kerala

Ajil, Vs State of Kerala

Febin v. Vs State of Kerala